NAMVER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. The revisionist is standing for trial in the court of I Addl. Ses sions Judge, Azamgarh in sessions trial No. 330 of 1982 under sections 364/342 I. P. C. The statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 8. 8. 91 and 16. 8. 91 was fixed for defence evidence. Due to strike by lawyers the case was adjourned to 21. 8. 91 on which date an application was moved on behalf of the revisionist for summoning Dy. Chief Medical Officer, Pharmacist along with Medico Legal Register and two Head Constables with the papers specified in the application. This application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the accused were given time to file papers and that they did not file papers and instead moved the application for summoning the witnesses with a view to delay the disposal of the case.

(2.) THE trial court has not recorded any finding that the examination of the witnesses and the summoning of the papers was not necessary for deciding the case. Even if there was some delay on the part of the accused in moving the application their prayer should not have been rejected. THE sessions trial related to the year 1982. Sufficient time was taken by the proser-'tion in adducing evidence. THE adjournment on one date would not have made much difference. THE accused are required to be given full opportunity to adduce their defence. It does not appear that the accused were delaying the matter unnecessarily or were misusing this opportunity. THE trial court was not at all justified in rejecting the application and closing defence evidence. THE revision has therefore to be allowed.