Criminal revision challenging rejection of application for summoning a witness under Section 319 Cr.P.C. read with Section 33(1) POCSO Act. Court held that since the trial court had already directed the application be heard after prosecution witnesses are examined, no prejudice was caused, and interference was not warranted.
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:124145
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3083 of 2024
Revisionist :- Raghvendra Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Other Counsel for Revisionist :- Ansar Ahmad,Sandhya Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
expeditious disposal of his earlier application No. 29B under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which has been rejected by the trial court vide impugned order dated 16.05.2024.
be considered after completion of statements of the prosecution witnesses of fact and the application No. 29B of the revisionist has not yet been rejected. Hence no prejudice is caused to the revisionist at this stage.
Order Date :- 30.7.2024 Kashifa
Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the revisionist's application for expeditious disposal of Section 319 Cr.P.C. proceedings before completion of prosecution witness statements.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Kashifa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
