AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 189 wordsB.K. Rathi, J.—Heard Sri Mohsin Iqbal, learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A.
The revisionists are accused in S.T. No. 4 of 2002 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4., Barabanki. The revisionist made a request to summon the Medical Officer of the District Jail alongwith record of the jail to prove the injuries caused to him. The request has been refused by the impugned order dated 9122002. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.
I do not find any cogent reason for rejection of the application. Only it is mentioned that the applicants want to delay the disposal of the case. However, it has not been mentioned as to how many adjournments were sought by the revisionists. The sessions trial is of the year 2002.
In the circumstances, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 9122002 it quashed. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to summon the witness alongwith record as prayed by the revisionists and to record his statement in defence and thereafter, shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Revision allowed.