Shatraunjay Kumar Choubey vs State of U.P. and Rana Jaswant Singh

R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 28.5.2007 and 31.5.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Court No. 2, Ballia in S.T. No. 307 of 2006, State v. Anirudh Choubey.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and I am deciding this application on merits at the admission stage as agreed by them.

The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the aforesaid Sessions Trial pending against the applicant and other co-accused persons in the above mentioned court. The prosecution evidence has been concluded in the above case. The defence evidence has also been concluded and on 28.5.07 the case was listed for hearing of arguments. On that date accused moved an application (paper 77 Kha) for permitting to file 24 documents. It was submitted that these documents proposed to be filed are public documents and they would help the court in proper decision of the case and so they may be admitted. This application was rejected by the trial court on the ground, that defence evidence has already been closed and the case was listed for arguments and sufficient opportunity had been given to the accused when defence evidence was closed after recording statement of D.W. 3, and no relevancy of documents had been explained.

Another application (Paper 78Kha) was moved on the same day in which it was prayed that two sessions trial being S.T. No. 98/04 State v. Fauzdar and 307/06 State v. Anirudh Choubey are pending in the court and evidence has been separately recorded in both these cases and so permission was sought that both these files should be consolidated and the evidence filed in one sessions trial should be considered in other sessions trial also. This application was also rejected on 2.05.07 on the ground that there is no such provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter another application was moved by the applicant for review of the above orders. That application was also rejected on 31.5.07 and then the applicant filed this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing above orders.

It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the documents which are proposed to be filed vide paper 77 Kha are public documents and so permission should have been accorded to file them. He submitted that these documents being the public documents are relevant for just decision of the case and the accused do not propose to adduce any oral evidence to prove them.

In view of above statement of the learned Counsel for the applicant that no oral evidence is to be produced to prove these documents I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to permit the applicant to file these documents. Application paper 77 Kha is, therefore, allowed. The prosecution is also allowed n opportunity to produce documents, if any, in rebuttal. However, if any document is filed by the prosecution in rebuttal, statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. shall be again recorded in respect of that document filed by the prosecution and he shall also be provided an opportunity to produce defence evidence in respect of documents filed by the prosecution.

So far as the question of consolidation of files of S.T. No. 98/04 State v. Fauzdar and 307/06 State v. Anirudh Choubey is concerned, it is to be seen that the evidence was recorded in both these sessions trials separately and so it is now not possible to consolidate them at the stage of arguments and the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the application. However, if the accused want that any particular document filed in one sessions trial maybe read in the other sessions trial also, they may file certified copy of that document in the others sessions trial and if any such prayer for, filing certified copy is made from the side of the accused, suitable orders on that prayer, shall be passed by the trial court in view of the observations made above by this court.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of with the above observations and directions to the trial court.