Dismissed

Balram Bhatt @ Balram Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024A482/9405/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The High Court found the applicant's counsel had already cross-examined the witness and the claim that they were denied opportunity was incorrect. Costs of Rs.25,000 were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. rejected; applicant directed to deposit Rs.25,000 costs.

Balram Bhatt @ Balram Prasad vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74416

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

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

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application is filed with the prayer to quash the Session Trial No.473 of 2020 "State Vs. Balram Bhatt" , arising out of Case Crime No.058 of 2020 under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station - Khodare, District - Gonda, by which, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recross examination of P.W.1 has been rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was falsely implicated in the present case and charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner, thereafter, case was committed to the court of Sessions and trial was proceeded. He further submits that P.W.1 was called for examination-in-chief and his examination-in-chief was conducted and thereafter, he was also cross examined on 28.8.2024 and the matter was posted on 29.8.2024 for further cross examination but the counsel for the applicant was not allowed to cross examine P.W.1 on 29.8.2024. He also submits that thereafter file was examined by counsel of the applicant and application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 9.9.2024 with the averment that P.W.1 was cross examined by the counsel of the applicant but as the case was being listed on day to day basis, therefore, he could not go through the entire statement and certain facts were not asked in the cross examination, therefore, it is necessary to recall the witness but the said application was rejected by the learned court below in the most mechanical manner, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the

¶10

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.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as well as deposition of P.W.1, it is evident from the record that on 28.8.2024 & 29.8.2024, P.W.1 was cross examined by counsel of the applicant and after completion of the cross examination, it is observed by the learned trial court that the cross examination of accused, Jokhu & Dharmendra is closed as they denied to cross examined, therefore, the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is found incorrect that his counsel was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses on 29.8.2024. In such circumstances, present application is dismissed with the cost of Rs.25,000/-.

¶12

Applicant is directed to deposit Rs.25,000/within one month from today before the Mediation & Conciliation Center of this Court. In case, aforesaid amount is not deposited, then District Magistrate, Gonda is directed to recover the same as land revenue and transmit the amount to Mediation & Conciliation Center of this Court and also file affidavit of compliance.

¶13

Senior Registrar of this Court is also directed to communicate this order to the trial court as well as District Magistrate, Gonda, forthwith.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Gaurav/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Balram Bhatt @ Balram Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Bhatt @ Balram Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Bharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Bijuli Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Rpin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Zaheer Abbas Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

C/M New Ideal Convent Public School Paliya Subeha Thru. Manager Pawan Kumar Dwivedi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Balram Bhatt @ Balram Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mewalal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another