RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri K. K. Srivas tava, learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGa

(2.) THIS revision is being finally dis posed of at the admission stage.

(3.) BEFORE consideration of the argu ments advanced by the learned Counsel for the revisionists a brief narration of the facts is necessary. Three of the revisionists namely, Raj Kumar, Chhotu alias Pratap and Ajay alias Rohit are in jail while Pramod was granted bail by an order dated 3-4-97 although his earlier two bail ap plications were rejected by this Court. While hearing the second bail application on 1-3-96 this Court had directed the Addl. Sessions Judge before whom the session trial was pending to dispose of the session trial within a month without wait ing for the arrest of the co-accused Satya Bir. The Court had also directed to the learned trial Court to submit a report giving his reasons for his inability to do so. This order of the Court still remains to be complied with. It appears from the record that after the prosecution evidence was closed and the case was fixed for state ments of the accused persons under Sec tion 313, Cr. PC. Accused Chhotu alias Pratap on 4-4-96 engaged another Coun sel Sri Chhidda Singh Tyagi who moved an application under Section 311, Cr. P. C. for summoning prosecution witness Viond and also PW 1 Ramesh for further cross-examination. This application was rejected on the same day finding that there was no sufficient ground. On 9-4-96 again another application was moved for sum moning the witnesses which application was again rejected. Thereafter the accused applied for time to file revision before the High Court. The Court below granted time but no revision was filed. Thereafter it appears that the statements of the ac cused persons under Section 313, Cr. P. C. were recorded on 14-5-96 and the case was fixed for defence evidence. Several dates were fixed for defence evidence as dis closed in the impugned order dated 25-7-97. It appears that the case was fixed for defence evidence on as many as 21 dates and out of these 21 dates on 3 dates, that is, 25-10-96, 3-12- 96 and 7-1-97 the Court was vacant. However, on none of these dates fixed for defence evidence any defence evidence was given by the accused persons. On 19-6-97 the Counsel for the accused absented and no application for adjournment was moved. The trial Court heard arguments of the prosecution and fixed 3-7-97 for judgment. On 3-7-97 an application was moved again making prayer for summoning the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination. That application was rejected by a detailed order dated 8-7-97 as observed by the trial Court in the impugned order. On 15-7-97 again the accused moved an ap plication of affording an opportunity to adduce defence evidence which applica tion was rejected, although the Counsel was given opportunity to place arguments in the session trial, Similar application was again moved on 22-7-97 which had been rejected by the impugned order.