BARKAT AHMAD SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Islam for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1814 of 1982, State v. Barkat Ahmad Siddiqui, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

(3.) The petitioner was a witness in sessions trial No. 423/1980, State v. Anoop Kumar and was examined during the trial as PW-5. It is alleged that the petitioner was scribe of the written report, Exhibit ka-2, alleged to have been lodged by the complainant Jang Bahadur. The petitioner stated in the witness box that he was scribe of the report and had also signed the same but stated that he wrote down the report in the police station Kotwali on the dictation of Deewan and the complainant Jang Bahadur had not put up his signature on the report in his presence. The prosecution declared the petitioner hostile and with the leave of the Court subjected him to cross-examination. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Allahabad rendered the final judgment of 30.4.1982 convicting and sentencing the accused Anoop Kumar, the husband of the deceased Radha and father of other deceased Km. Ranjana, under Section 302 IPC to under go imprisonment for life. The criminal appeal No. 1120/1982 preferred by the accused Anoop Kumar has also been dismissed by a division bench of this Court on 3.4.2007. It may also be mentioned that the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Allahabad while rendering the final judgment, found that the statement of the petitioner that he wrote the written report Ex.ka-2 on the dictation of the Deewan in the police station and the complainant Jang Bahadur had not signed the report in his presence, was false being contrary to his previous statement made before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code. Accordingly the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the district Government counsel (Criminal) to draft a complaint against the petitioner and other witnesses. On such direction the District Government Counsel (Criminal) drafted a complaint, which was signed by the Additional Sessions Judge and was filed in the Court of the Magistrate.