Satyendra Kumar Sharma @ v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
In an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order imposing cost for summoning defence witnesses, the High Court held that the accused must be given a fair opportunity to defend. It directed the applicant to deposit the cost within three weeks, after which the trial shall proceed.
What did the court decide?
The applicant is directed to deposit the cost within three weeks for the trial court to summon defence witnesses and proceed with the trial.
What the court decided
Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4951 of 2023
Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Sharma @ Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant for quashing part of the order dated 21.9.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Varanasi in S.T. No.155 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No.5 of 2009, under Sections 309, 323, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Chaubepur, District Varanasi.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the accused in the aforesaid criminal case. An application was preferred by the application on 13th September, 2022 for summoning of the defence witnesses. Learned court concerned by order dated 21nd September, 2022 directed for summoning of the defence witnesses subject to payment of the cost by the applicant. Subsequently, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant challenging the aforesaid order. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 7th December, 2022 with liberty to file a fresh application along with better particulars.
Learned counsel for the applicant tried to challenge the order dated 21st September, 2022 on the ground that the applicant is a very poor person and as such he cannot bear the expenses of summoning the witnesses as has been ordered by the court concerned.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
whether the impugned order imposing cost for summoning defence witnesses should be quashed given the applicant's financial condition was not pleaded below.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Satyendra Kumar Sharma @ Opposite Party
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Vikram D. Chauhan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/4951/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court