Hon’ble Alok Kumar Mukherjee, J.—Heard Sri G.S.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hargur Saran Singh, opposite party No. 3, who has appeared in person and learned AGA for the State.

2. This application has been preferred against the order dated 2.11.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2013 (Brig. Sukhjit Singh (Retd.) v. State of U.P.), arising out of Criminal Case No. 264 of 2012 (State of U.P. v. Brig. Sukhjit Singh {Retd.}), Case Crime No. 315 of 1991, under Section 420/34 IPC, Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application (14 Kha and 17 Kha) moved by the applicant/appellant, with a prayer for staying the further proceeding in the said criminal appeal, pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Rampur and for quashing the aforementioned order not permitting the applicant to file the documents in question and to examine the concerned official Scinde Horse Trust qua, the applicant’s trust-deed dated 18.10.1989 and concerned resolution bearing No. 112 to prove the same in the interest of justice.

3. By the impugned application, during the course of hearing of the appeal, the applicant/convict had requested before the appellate Court to grant permission to file the aforementioned trust-deed and the said resolution as also to summon the three witnesses mentioned in the application with a view to prove the aforementioned documents. Against these applications, objections had already been filed by the complainant. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge had rejected both the applications.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the documents proposed to file and the witnesses required to be summoned by the applicant/convict were essential for the just and fair decision of the matter but the appellate Court, while deciding the impugned applications, under Section 391 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’), gave emphasis that the appellant/convict had given ample opportunity by the learned trial Court to file or/and to prove the documents in defence but he failed to do so. In the opinion of the learned appellate Court there was no reason for taking the documents in question on record and to get the same proved. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that while declining the impugned applications, the learned Session Judge did not even properly apply the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions of Ram Bhao and another v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (2) Crimes 231 (SC) and Rajeshwar Prasad Mishra v. State of West Bengal, 1965 (2) Cr LJ 817; AIR 1965 SC 1887. He further argued that the applicant is a senior citizen, aged about 82 years and retired as Senior Army Officer. He has been dragged in the present case for the last about 25 years with the aid of Section 34 IPC and has been convicted by the learned trial Court without either having an iota of evidence on record or considering the findings of this Court or even taking note of the conduct of the complainant.

5. Learned AGA for the State as well as the complainant, who is also a senior citizen, aged about 80 years have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the impugned matter is hanging fire for the last about 26 years due to delaying tactics adopted by the applicant. One of the accused has already been dead during the pendency of the trial. The Trust in question is a public charitable trust, owned by the Scinde Horse Regiment of Indian Army. The accused persons wanted to sell the Trust property by misrepresentation, alleging that they were trustees and had obtained the permission of the Court whereas they had no legal right to sell the properties/land belonging to the said Trust. The complainant, who is a marginal farmer having