RANGI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Rajul Bhargava, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P.

(2.) THIS application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 4.8.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-I, Basti in S.T. No. 23 of 2003 whereby the application No. 284 Kha filed by the applicant for sending the specimen hand writing of P.W. 4 Chandra Prakash Yadav, to the Hand Writing Expert for the comparison with the application No. 5 Ka/98 in the case of State v. Jai Ram, has been rejected.

(3.) IN reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that in the present case cross F.I.R. has been registered and in both the cases charge-sheets have been submitted, P.W. 4 is not an accused in cross case, whereas he was named in the F.I.R. but during investigation, it was found that he had not committed the alleged offence but in the present case he had sustained injuries, his presence cannot be doubted, he has been re-summoned by the learned trial court on the application filed by the applicant for the purposes of putting him on cross-examination about the application No. 5 Ka of 1998, which was allegedly sent by O.P. No. 4 to S. P., Sant Kabir Nagar but P.W. 4 Chandra Prakash Yadav had denied his hand writing by submitting that application No. 5 Ka of 1998 was not written by him and he has denied his signature also, even then for the purpose of satisfaction of the trial court, his hand writing of same contents was obtained by the learned trial court, the trial court has not committed any error in sending the application No. 5 Ka of 1998 for the purpose of comparison to the hand writing expert because it was not essentially required for the just decision of the case, even the application was not sent in the present case, it was sent to the S.P. Sant Kabir Nagar in the cross case, and it has been denied by P.W. 4, in such a situation, the learned trial court rightly rejected the application No. 284 Kha filed by the applicant vide order dated 4.8.2008, there is no illegality in the impugned order.