Abha Sinha vs State Of Uttarakhand

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 07.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Criminal Case No.2391 of 2014 State Vs. Satveer Sehrawat and Ors., whereby, the application dated 04.03.2022 moved by the applicant-accused to summon the defence witnesses has been rejected and further the revisional order dated 15.09.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.88 of 2022 Abha Sinha Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby, the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional CJM was affirmed.

The applicant is facing a criminal trial in Criminal Case No.2391 of 2014 State Vs. Satveer Sehrawat and Ors., in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. From perusal of the record, it transpires that much after the conclusion of the prosecution evidence and recording of statement of four witnesses, an application purportedly under Section 243 of Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant-accused on 04.03.2022, to summon the defence witnesses-Champa Lal Agrawal (partner SARCK Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad), Registrar of Cooperative Society Ahmedabad and Notary who allegedly notarized the resignation letter of Abha Sinha-applicant, on the ground that the evidences of these witnesses are necessary for complete justice between the parties.

The said application dated 04.03.2022 was opposed by the State saying that the said application has been moved only to delay the trial and further there are orders from the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital and Hon’ble Apex Court to decide the criminal case expeditiously.

Learned Additional CJM rejected aforesaid application vide impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2022. It has been specifically pointed out by the learned ACJM that the criminal case is pending since 2014 on defence evidence and 04 defence witnesses were already examined. It is further opined by the learned ACJM that Registrar, Cooperative Society Ahmedabad and Income Tax Officer Ahmedabad were summoned for defence witnesses and the summons were already served upon them. Further the documents which the applicant-accused along with other co-accused-Satveer Sehrawat and Harish Sehrawat, want to bring on record were available in the official website i.e. www.mca.gov.in of the Ministry, which can be produced by the applicant-accused and co-accused persons on their own. With these reasoning, the application has been rejected. However, the applicant-accused and other co-accused persons were given 15 days time to produce remaining defence evidences/documents on their asking.

Feeling disgruntled, applicant-Abha Sinha filed a Criminal Revision No.88 of 2022 Abha Sinha Vs. State of Uttarakhand, in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, challenging the judgment and order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned ACJM. The said Revision met with the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide a detailed judgment and order dated 15.09.2022.

Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar has recorded its reasoning in Para 10 and 11 of the judgment and came to this conclusion that no interference was warranted in the judgment and order passed by the learned ACJM.

Having perused both the impugned orders and examining the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Revisional Court, is perfect and need no interference.

Accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.