RAMAN KIRPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the orders dated 9.5.2005 and 30.6.2006, passed by Special C.J.M., Customs, Lucknow in complaint case No. 801 of 2002 under Sections 500 and 501, I.P.C. Anant Kumar Singh v. Raman Kirpal and others, relating to Police Station Hazaratganj, district Lucknow. It has been further prayed that an order be passed directing the Court below to summon the witnesses under Section 311, Cr. P.C. or the petitioner be himself given an opportunity to produce his defence witnesses.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this application are that an application was moved for summoning three defence witnesses namely M/s. Shiela Reddy, Sri Sanjeev Rastogi and Vijay Simha. This application was disposed of on 9.5.2005 with a direction to the accused persons to produce the defence witnesses themselves, if they so desire and for that purpose several dates were also fixed for defence evidence. But no evidence was produced in defence. This order was also not challenged till the filing of the instant application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. on 21.8.2006. When no evidence was produced even after giving several dates, the defence evidence was closed. Then on 13.6.2005 an application under Section 315, Cr. P.C. was moved for permitting one of the accused namely the petitioner to be examined as defence witness which was allowed and his evidence was recorded. Thereafter another application dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure-4) was moved under Section 311, Cr. P.C. for summoning one witness namely Sri Sanjeev Rastogi, Photographer which was rejected vide order dated 30.6.2006 (Annexure-1). Feeling aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders the instant application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been moved to invoke the inherent powers of this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand it was argued that in the application dated 9.5.2005 no reason whatsoever was assigned for summoning the three witnesses. Any subject-matter was also not disclosed on which these witnesses were supposed to adduce evidence. The address given of the three witnesses were also incomplete. It is further submitted that this application was moved only with a view to delay the proceedings but even then the court below afforded sufficient opportunity to produce witnesses of defence for about one and half years. But neither any defence witness was produced nor this order was challenged.