Nayeem vs State of U.P.

B.K. Rathi, J.—Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the A.G.A.

The applicant/revisionist is an accused in S.T. No. 527 of 1995, State v. Nayeem, under Sections 394 and 302, I.P.C., pending in the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. The applicant moved an application No. 129Kha to call the witnesses in defence. That application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 1342000. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

In this case coaccused Mukesh moved an application to summon certain witnesses under Section 311, Cr. P.C. His application was rejected and against that order he preferred Criminal Revision No. 2421 of 1999. That revision was also dismissed by the High Court on 231299. However, it was observed that the accused could summon the witnesses in defence. Accused Nayeem, thereafter moved application to call the witnesses in defence. That application was again rejected by the impugned order.

4.1 have perused the order. The trial is very old. The perusal of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that the defence evidence has already been closed and the case is fixed for arguments. Several dates have already been fixed, but the accused are seeking adjournments on one ground or the other. That the sole intention of the applicant is to delay the disposal of the trial.

It may also be mentioned that the copy of the application 129Kha has also been filed by the applicant. The perusal of the application shows that no reason has been mentioned as to why the witnesses are required to be examiend in defence and how their statements are necessary. Therefore, it appears that the sole purpose is to delay the disposal of the session trial.

6.1 do not find any ground to interfere in the order. The revision is dismissed summarily. Revision dismissed.