AJAY Vs. STATE O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for challenging order dated 10. 12. 2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Jaunpur, summoning the application under section 319 Cr. P. C. in ST No. 492 of 2006 (State v. Jasram), under sections 302 and 307 IPC, PS Nangal, District Bijnor.

(3.) THE applicant had, thereafter, preferred a Spl. Leave Petition No. 2417 of 2007 against the order of the High Court before the Apex Court. THE Apex Court was pleased to allow the said application on the ground that in his cross-examination PW 1, Mitthan, had denied making any statement to the investigating officer and he simply claimed to have made the said statement in Court. It was also observed by the Apex Court that the witness could not give any reason why his cross-examination was deferred and another witness Harish Chandra was examined who had also named the applicant, his cross-examination was also deferred. THE Supreme Court observed that the learned Sessions Judge had departed from the underlying principles L for exercising jurisdiction on an application under section 319 Cr. P. C. and referred to the decision of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Rant Kishan Rohtagi and others. 1983 (20) ACC 50 (SC ). However, the Apex Court had observed that, "this order shall not preclude the learned Sessions Judge from applying his mind afresh after prosecution has examined other witnesses. "