SOHRAB AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D.N. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) THE order dated 30 -7 -2005 passed by the Special Judge, Azamgarh in Session Trial No. 505 of 1997, State v. Sohrab, under Sections 307, 324, 506 I.P.C. has been challenged in this application. An application was moved on 30 -7 -2005 with a prayer that statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. may be recorded through Counsel as he is employed at present in Saudi Arab, he is not able to get leave. An undertaking was also given on behalf of the applicant that if some prejudice is caused on account of non -examination of the applicant under Section 313 Cr. P.C. then he will not raise any objection to the said effect either in appeal or revision in future. A copy of the application has been annexed as annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. The Sessions Judge, Azamgarh rejected the said application issuing non -bailable warrant against the applicant and a notice under Section 446 Cr. P.C. fixing 9 -8 -2005. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandu Lal Chandraker v. Puran Mal and Anr., AIR 1988 Supreme Court, 2163, wherein the Apex Court has held that when the appellant's request for getting his statement recorded through Counsel was rejected by the trial Court and the order was confirmed, by the High Court in Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The Apex Court observed in paragraph No. 2 of the said judgment, which is quoted below: