SURENDRA KUMAR SOOD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the accused of Complaint Case No. 840 of 2007, Vinod Jaiswal Vs. Surendra Kumar Sud and others, u/s 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 I. P. C. being aggrieved by the order dated 25. 9. 2008 passed by the revisional court whereby it allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 19. 7. 2008 passed by the trial court and directed the parties to appear in the trial court for further proceedings. It appears that the aforesaid complaint was running in the evidence of the complainant u/s 244 Cr. P. C. On 18. 6. 2008 an application was moved by the counsel for the complainant that he had suddenly fallen ill. That application was allowed. Unfortunately, the counsel died and the case was taken up on the next date fixed i. e. 19. 7. 2008. The complainant by that time had engaged another counsel Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra. Mr. Mishra moved an application for adjournment on the ground that he had to file certain papers. The court insisted for the filing of the paper on the very same day. As the complainant was the resident of a far off place, hence it was not possible for him to comply with the direction of the court and ultimately the direction was not complied with. The court closed the evidence of the complainant and fixed 28. 7. 2008. This order of the trial court was challenged in the revision and the revision was allowed by the concerned Sessions Judge vide order dated 25. 9. 2008. I have heard Mr. A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Srivastava that as the complainant was seeking adjournment continuously, hence the trial court was perfectly justified in closing his evidence. I feel that whatever has been argued by Mr. Srivastava cannot be accepted. It appears from the record that the reason for closing the evidence was the developments, which took place on 19. 7. 2008. On this date an application was moved for adjournment on the ground that the complainant wants to file certain papers. The court insisted for the filing of the papers on the very same day and because it was not possible for the complainant to file the papers on the same day, hence in all fairness an opportunity should have been given to him for filing the papers. When it was not done, it could well be held that the trial court went wrong in not affording reasonable opportunity of leading evidence to the complainant. Hence the order of the trial court was rightly reversed by the revisional court. In view of the above, there is no merits in this revision, it is accordingly dismissed. .