High Court dismissed an application for quashing the rejection of a Section 311 Cr.P.C. plea to recall a witness, finding the applicant’s counsel had already cross-examined the witness on record dates.
Application for quashing rejected; applicant to deposit Rs. 25,000/- as costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74416
Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9405 of 2024 Applicant :- Balram Bhatt @ Balram Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
applicant and submits that on 28.8.2024 & 29.8.2024, P.W.1 was cross examined by the counsel for the applicant and after completion of cross examination by the counsel for the applicant, same was closed for the accused Jokhu & Dharmendra, which is categorically mentioned in the statements annexed at Page 149. She further submits that general averments have been made in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has wrongly submitted that on 29.8.2024 opportunity to cross examine witness was not given by the trial court and the same was closed, in such circumstances, application is liable to be dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Gaurav/-
Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Learned Trial Court properly rejected the application for recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Balram Bhatt @ Balram Prasad
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
