PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.6.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 282 of 2013, Prakash Chandra Gupta v. Surya Prakash Jalan, whereby impugned order dated 31.5.2013 passed by C.J.M., Ghaziabad in case No. 21125 of 2009, State v. Surya Prakash Jalan, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad has been affirmed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned A.G.A. and record has also been perused twine impugned orders.

(2.) Learned A.G.A. in rebuttal submitted that both the impugned orders have been passed after correctly analysing the facts and circumstances of the case and the discretion vested in the lower Court has rightly been exercised and if the prayer of the revisionist seeking is own re-examination after having turned hostile at the earlier stage of trial was to be allowed such a practice shall necessary have resulted in gross misuse of the provision and will result in an anarchic situation. According to learned A.G.A. both the impugned orders have been legally passed by the lower Courts and the same cannot be faulted with.

(3.) This Court had occasion to peruse the record including twin impugned orders. It is demonstrably clear that the revisionist was examined on five different dates in the trial Court. The dates of his examination are 15.2.2011, 9.3.2011, 11.3.2011, 17.3.2011 and 28.3.2011. While disposing of the application moved under Sections 311 Cr. P.C. by the revisionist, the trial Court has taken note of the fact that during entire period of his examination in the Court the accused remained inside the jail. It has also been taken note of by learned lower Court that application under Section 311 Cr. P.C. seeking his own re-examination was moved by the petitioner after a lapse of more than two years on 4.5.2013. It has also been noted that during this period a criminal prosecution against the revisionist was also ordered by the High Court which relates to case Crime No. 953 of 2012. The possibility that the application in question under Section 311 Cr. P.C. might have been moved with ulterior purpose to exercise pressure on the accused has also been kept in mind. The analysis of facts and law given in the impugned order seems to be beyond reproach and is apparently unassailable. The revisionist completely failed to satisfy the Courts below about the truthfulness of threat given to him.. If the complainant proposed to change his stand in the Court according to his own whims and caprice, the revisional Court should not be expected to accommodate the judicial proceedings in accordance with the same and the Court proceedings cannot be allowed to be dictated or modulated accordingly to the suitability of the parties specially when the request made on behalf of the complaint-revisionist, looks apparently inspired by vested interest or ulterior motive. Re-examination of the witnesses after a lapse of two years could be done only in extreme cases and that too where the same is found to be the only indispensable course in the order to meet out the ends of justice and certainly not in matters like the one at hand. None of the impugned orders under challenge require any interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.