Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P.

Dev Kant Trivedi, J.—By means of the present revision, the complainant of Crime No. 36 of 1995 has assailed the orders dated 3rd June, 1999 whereby the applications 92Kha and 93Kha moved by him before Special Judge, Essential Commodities, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 980 of 1995 were rejected.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also learned A.G. A.

The complainant by means of the application 92Kha made prayer for summoning the Investigating Officer and by means of 93Kha prayed for summoning a witness namely, Dr. Piyush Mishra Medical Officer, K.P.M. Hospital Kanpur Nagar to assail the veracity of a defence witness.

Learned Trial Judge considered the two applications and rejected both the applications.

Learned Trial Judge observed in the impugned orders that the summoning of the Investigating Officer was not necessary in the circumstances of the case at the instance of the complainant as no prejudice was likely to be caused to the prosecution by their nonexamination inasmuch as all the papers which were required to be proved by the. Investigating Officer had already been admitted by the accused persons. The observations of the learned Judge has been to be wholly justified and he committed no error whatsoever in declining to summon the Investigating Officer.

So far as the order on other application 93Kha whereby the complainant sought for an order summoning another doctor with a view to assail the veracity of the defence witness, the learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that there was no need to do so as the summoning of the doctor was not at all necessary or expedient in the interest of justice.

In passing the aforesaid impugned orders the learned Trial Judge has committed no error whatsoever.

The revision, therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Revision dismissed.