G R GULATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 26.5.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bulandshahr by virtue of which the application moved by the applicants under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

(2.) Brief facts are that an F.I.R. was lodged against the accused in which the accused G.R. Gulati was named. Investigation was conducted by the local police in this case and the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet bearing no. 240 dated 11.6.2004 against the applicant and four other accused persons. Supplementary charge sheet dated 7.8.2004 was submitted against the said accused persons under Section 364, 302, 201 & 120-B I.P.C. Meanwhile, the matter was referred to the C.B.C.I.D. for investigation and after investigation a final report bearing no. 11 of 2005 dated 3.5.2005 was submitted by the Investigating Officer Sri K.P. Singh but the trial court took cognizance upon the charge sheet no. 240 dated 11.6.2004 on 1.7.2004 and further on the supplementary charge sheet no. 240-A dated 7.4.2004 on 9.9.2004. The Investigating Officer of the C.B.C.I.D. submitted final report but the court had already taken cognizance and the accused had also been summoned. The lower court took up the trial and the prosecution evidence was concluded and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons was recorded and the opportunity was given to the accused to produce defence witnesses. The defence submitted the names of two witnesses to be examined as defence witnesses, namely, Yaduraj Singh, S.O. of the local police and the K.P. Singh the then Investigating Officer of the C.B.C.I.D. In response to the summon issued by the trial court, Sri Yaduraj Singh (D.W.1) appeared and was examined by the trial court. Sri K.P. Singh the then Investigating Officer of the C.B.C.I.D. did not appear and consequently, the defence evidence was closed by the applicant. It will not be out of place to mention here that after the final report was submitted by the C.B.C.I.D., a protest petition was presented against which the accused persons were summoned.

(3.) It has been argued before me that the case of the accused is prejudiced if Sri K.P. Singh the then Investigating Officer of the C.B.C.I.D. is not summoned as a witness because an application to this effect was moved before the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. but the trial court was pleased to reject this application, hence, this application.