CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Umesh Chandra Misra vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 2 November 1993 · Citation: (1993) 11 AHC CK 0024

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.S.Tripathi, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Remission No. 1689 of 1993
Ask AI about this case

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

11 paragraphs · 367 words

A. S. Tripathi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. for the State.

2.

The revisionist was an accused in a criminal case facing trial under Section 20 of N. D. P. S. Act before Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat.

3.

The witnesses were examined and crossexamined. The revisionist alleges that on account of his poverty he could not engage any counsel and the learned counsel as engaged did not crossexamine the witnesses properly. An application was moved for recalling the witness for crossexamination but the said application was rejected by the trial Judge on the ground that witnesses have been crossexamined by the lawyer.

4.

After perusing the affidavit and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the revisionist was not satisfied by the crossexamination done by the trial Judge in the trial court.

5.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it appears necessary for the ends of justice that the revisionist accused be allorded an opportunity for further crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses.

6.

Learned counsel for the revisionist at this stage prays only for recalling witnesses, PW 3S. I. Ram Dularey Singh, PW 4S. I. Brijraj Dubey and PW 5Mohd. Yasin for further crossexamination.

7.

The allegation is that crossexamination of these 3 witnesses was not proper. The trial Judge did not find it necessary to recall the witnesses simply on the ground that as he has observed in the order that sufficient crossexamination was done. This observation by the trial Judge may not be taken an opinion on merits of the case or at the stage when the crossexamination was closed.

8.

Accordingly, it is directed that the trial Judge shall recall the witnesses, namely, PW 3S. I. Ram Dularey Singh, PW 4S. I. Brijraj Dubey and PW 5Mohd. Yasin for further crossexamination.

9.

The revisionist shall be given an opportunity on a date fixed by the trial court for further examination of the aforesaid witnesses. After crossexamination of the witnesses on a date fixed and without any undue delay, the trial may be concluded according to law.

10.

With this direction, the revision is finally disposed of.

Revision disposed.