Nand Kishore and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record.

This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

It is most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the Opposite Party No. 1 in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 2008 (State v. Nand Kishore and Ors.) and allow the application No. B-14, u/s 311 of the Code filed by the petitioners.

The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner had moved an application before the Trial Court u/s 311 of the Code to summon P.W. 1-Munni Lal (Opposite Party No. 2) for further cross-examination on the ground that he has engaged new counsel and his new counsel after going through the statement of P.W.-1 found that the witness has not been cross-examined on some points relating to medical treatment of the deceased. The application was opposed by the learned A.D.G.C. (Crl.). The Trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties rejected the application with the observation that the accused had already got opportunity twice to cross-examine the witness. He has moved the application just to fill up the lacuna. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the new counsel engaged by the accused-petitioners does not want to cross-examine the witness on the points already cross-examined but he wants to cross-examine the witness on a limited question relating to the medical treatment of the deceased in the interest of justice. The application should have been allowed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is illegal and is liable to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition.

Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

From a perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it appears that the accused had already availed two opportunities to cross-examine the witness. The Trial Court has rejected the application by passing reasoned order on cogent grounds which in my opinion does not suffer from any illegality and does not call for any interference.

The petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.