SONU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The present 482 Cr.P.C . application has been filed to quash the order dated 30th October, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 727 of 2001 (State Vs. Nisar Ahmad and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 538 of 2000, under Sections-396 and 120-B I.P.C ., Police Station-Bahedi, District-Bareilly, whereby the application made by opposite party no.2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of Prosecution Witness No.2, namely, Ashok Kumar has been allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court below, without considering the objection and evidences available on record has passed the impugned order, allowing the application of opposite party no.2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that in the trial of the aforesaid case, the evidences between the parties have already been ended and the trial is at the final stage, therefore, the application filed by the prosecution for re-examination of P.W.-2, namely, Ashok Kumar after 19 years delay, is not maintainable. It is further submitted that P.W. -2 Ashok Kumar has already been examined and cross-examined on 19th September, 2006 and when the prosecution thought that the prosecution would not succeed in the instant session trial then with the collusion of said witness, is trying to re-examine him, in an effort to succeed,, which is not permissible under law in any manner. He, therefore, submits that the order impugned, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the evidence on record and is also beyond time, hence the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his plea, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) in the case of Raghunath Prasad Vs. State of Rarjasthan, reported in 1997 LawSuit (Raj) 12.