Dismissed

Yamuna Prasad Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2023A482/3593/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by an applicant challenging an order dated 20.12.2022 that allowed a similar application. The applicant argued the lower court erred in not calling a forensic expert despite the report's absence. The court characterized 482 as misconceived and rejected it.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected; impugned order dated 20.12.2022 remains in force.

Yamuna Prasad Tiwari and 3 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3593 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Yamuna Prasad Tiwari And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Varun Dev Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Varun Dev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present case has been filed assailing the order dated 20.12.2022 vide which the application of the informant has been allowed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order dated 20.12.2022 is illegal as the concerned Court without realizing the fact that expert of forensic laboratory was not examined and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded nor he was made witness in the charge sheet, therefore, there was no occasion of calling upon the expert. He further submits that earlier an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, a second application was dismissed as withdrawn and this is the third application of the informant with the same prayer. Therefore, the aforesaid order passed by learned Court below is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order of learned Court below dated 20.12.2022 as perusal of the earlier application goes to show that the same was filed making a request for recalling some other witnesses, however, in the present case, the application is with respect of making the report from the

¶9

forensic lab as an Exhibit, making it a part of the evidence.

¶10

The aforesaid order has been passed directing the expert from the concerned lab to place the report and the evidence of the prosecution is closed, therefore, relief as prayed cannot be granted.

¶11

In view of the above, the application u/s 482 being misconceived, is rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.4.2023 Rahul.

¶13

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yamuna Prasad Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yamuna Prasad Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjana Singh Vs State of U.P. 4 Others

Puttan Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dev Saran Maurya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arshad Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Kumar Sharma @ Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another