RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 7. 11. 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Bareilly, in S. T. No. 469 of 2001, Statevs. Ram Prasad and others, whereby the application moved by the accused at the stage of defence for summoning the criminal history of the prosecution witness Ranvir Singh was rejected. The trial court was of the opinion that the criminal history of the injured was not a relevant fact and could not be allowed to be brought on the record. I have heard Mr. P. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Mr. Srivastava argued that as the witness Ranvir singh had denied from his criminal antecedents, hence the required material was necessary to shake his credit and this is permissible u/s 146 of the Evidence Act. I do agree. When the witness was asked about his criminal antecedents and he denied the same then to shake his credit it was necessary to summon the record concerning his criminal history and that is what the accused persons had requested for at the defence stage. As that being a relevant material to shake the credit of the witness, it should have been allowed and by not doing the same an improper order has been passed. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 7. 11. 2008 is quashed. The trial court is directed to summon the record as requested for by the accused person and for that any witness may also be summoned, if needed. .