Chandan Singh and Others vs State of U. P. and Another

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—Two cross cases S. T. No. 268 of 1993, State v. Ram Shanker and 5 others, u/s 302, I.P.C. and S. T. No. 1604 of 1996, State v. Punnu Lal and others, u/s 307, I.P.C are pending before Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar. In one of them (S. T. No. 1604 of 1996), the complainant moved an application on 13.3.2008 under the provisions of Section 311, Cr. P.C. for summoning three witnesses, which the trial court refused. Thereafter, the complainant party in another trial in which they are the accused moved an application on 15.3.2008 before the trial court for giving them one month time for challenging the aforenoted order, which the trial court also refused again.

Ultimately, they gave an application before the trial Judge for giving them some time for transfer of their case and the Judge gave them 17 days time.

They thereafter applied before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar for transfer of their cases, who rejected the same.

They have now come up here repeating the same allegations.

I have heard Sri A. C. Tiwari, counsel for the applicants and Sri Mohd. Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

There is manifestly no substance in the allegations and the Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the same.

It will appear from the aforesaid facts that the case has been pending for the last 15 years. Now after 15 years, the complainant has woken up to find that the statement of three witnesses are required in the case from the side of the prosecution. It is well-established principle of law that delay defeats equity. The mere circumstance of such inordinate delay is by itself sufficient to justify rejection of the application. However, it is to be acknowledged that the Court should itself summon all such witnesses whose evidence can help discovery of truth, provided the Court finds that their evidence will be helpful in this regard. The trial court did not shut the doors on the complainant''s request and observed in its order, if it finds after the arguments are over, that the testimony of these witnesses will be helpful in arriving at a finding in this case, it shall itself summon the witnesses.

The application does not, therefore, stand rejected.

The Court was justified in observing that dilatory tactics are being adopted by the complainant, and a very old case is being unnecessarily dragged despite the fact that there are directions of the High Court, for early disposal of old cases.

When all methods for blocking the progress of the cases failed to fructify, the transfer application was moved. The conduct of the applicants has been reprehensible. The only purpose is to delay the proceedings in the case.

Application rejected.