PHOOLCHANDRA DUBEY Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. It is not necessary to issue notice to opposite party Nos. 2 to 7.

(2.) The instant revision is preferred against the order dated 25/5/2010 passed by the A.S.J., Court No. 1, Bhadohi Gyanpur, District- Sant Ravi Das Nagar in S.T. No. 22 of 1999 (State v. Vijay Shanker and others), under Sections 302,201, 147, 149, 120B IPC, P.S. Aurai whereby the trial Court refused to record the remaining evidence of revisionist Phool Chandra Dubey (P.W.-1).

(3.) The facts as contained in the impugned order are that the revisionist is the complainant in the Sessions Trial. His examination-in-chief was recorded on 30/8/2005 but on subsequent dates he did not appear for cross-examination. On 24/11/2005, his cross-examination was closed as he did not appear and other witnesses were examined. On 26/4/2010 an application 296 Kha was moved by the revisionist-complainant before the trial Court that his statement be recorded for just decision of the case. The application was opposed by learned counsel for the accused on the ground that the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1194 of 2010 filed by Phool Chandra Dubey, complainant, set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court dated 27/2/2010 closing the prosecution evidence and directed one more opportunity be given to the revisionist to lead its remaining evidence. The objection is that in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, opportunity was given on 17/4/2010 and there is no occasion for re-examination of P.W.-1.