BRIJEASH SAURABH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

(2.) By means of this application filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed following main reliefs:-

(3.) The precise contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the learned trial court vide order dtd. 17/11/2022 recorded the chief statement of one PW-11, Uma Shankar Tripathi. On that, particularly at that point of time, counsel for the applicant was busy in another court, therefore, one application was filed on his behalf to adjourn the case as his counsel was not able to cross-examine PW-11 Uma Shankar Tripathi. Learned trial court rejected the said application for the reason that the counsel for the present applicant had not indicated about the court where he was busy. Since no adjournment of any kind whatsoever was sought earlier to cross-examine PW-11, rather the chief-examination of the said witness was recorded on 17/11/2022, therefore, at least, one short time should be given to the counsel for the applicant in terms of Sec. 273 Cr.P.C., which clearly provided that except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the court of the trial or other proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the accused or when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader. On the strength of aforesaid legal proposition, the present applicant has filed an application dtd. 25/11/2022 (Annexure No.5) under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the order dtd. 17/11/2022 and to provide one opportunity to cross-examine PW-11. By means of order dtd. 25/11/2022 (Annexure No.6), learned trial court rejected the said application indicating therein that the cases relating to MP/MLA should be disposed of with expedition in terms of directions being issued by the Hon'ble High Court and said matter was old, therefore, adjournment was not possible. Learned trial court has also indicated that the counsel had not indicated in his application about the court where he was busy. Therefore, the ground of business of any Advocate on particular date may not be a good ground to adjourn the case. Sri Misra has sated that had this case been in a nature that frequent adjournment had been sought from the side of the present applicant, the observation of the learned trial court would have been appropriated but in the present case, admittedly, on the date when the chief-examination of PW-11 was recorded, the opportunity of cross-examination of such witness has been closed by the learned trial court. The aforesaid exercise is violative of Sec. 273 Cr.P.C. Therefore, he has requested that quashing the orders dtd. 17/11/2022 and 25/11/2022, the present applicant may be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine PW-11.