RAMDHAN DANG Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed seeking of quashing the order dated 19.1.2013 passed by Additional District and Session Judge-III, Gautam Budh Nagar whereby the application moved on behalf of petitioner No. 2 seeking to bring on record an order passed by the Apex Court, was rejected. It has also been prayed by the petitioner to direct the Court of revision to reconsider the petitioner's application in respect of bringing on record the judgment and order dated 12.12.2008 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. Record has been perused.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the impugned order suffers from a patent error of law and also reflects a breach of judicial propriety in as much as the revisional Court has refused to take on record a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which had a direct relevance to the issues involved in the matter and was touching upon the same subject-matter and was also in between the common parties litigating in the trial Court. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to section 399 of Cr.P.C. and it has been emphasized that a bare reading of the aforesaid provision shall demonstrate that the powers to take additional evidence are sufficiently there with the Court of revision and are the same which the Court of appeal has. It has been argued that as the above power to take additional evidence by appellate Court is almost identical with that of revisional Court therefore, the observations of the Court that there is no law or legal basis which may legitimise the taking of any document on record flies in the face of law and is liable to be quashed. Further submission is that if the Hon'ble Apex Court has also had the occasion to adjudicate upon the same subject-matter or an identical matter or even if there has been an adjudication on some relevant aspect or relevant issues involved in the proceedings in question, the significance or relevance of the Apex Courts' judgment was demonstratively manifest and cannot be over emphasized. It has been submitted that the impugned order also reflects an act of impropriety as the Court below should not have refused to take on record the judgment of the Supreme Court.

(3.) The Court has perused the entire record alongwith the impugned order in the light of the submission made at the bar. Ordinarily the Court could have issued notice to the opp. party No. 2 and passed any order after giving him opportunity of hearing but adopting such a course would necessarily involve the staying of lower Court's proceedings which are going on against the petitioners. In the wake of heavy pendency in the Court, where the dockets of the pending cases are already bursting on their seams, if this Court at the time of issuing notice puts the operation of impugned order in abeyance, there is hardly any likelihood for this petition to get decided on merit in a measurable distance of time or in near future. Such a course shall be more detrimental to the cause of the opposite party and shall have very adversely affected the larger interest of the complainant. As the impugned order also reflects gross illegality which is palpable on the face of record, this Court deems it fit to decide this petition on the basis of the record with assistance of learned AGA. who is representing the State, respondent No. 1 and also after perusing the entire law on the point.