Back
2021 Supreme(All) 28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.
Raja Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 1758 of 2020
Decided on : 11-01-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Gyanendra Singh, Deepak Dubey, Shyam Kumar Verma
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1960 - Sections 302, 201/34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 311 - Arms Act - Section 3/25 - Crime case - Revisionist with a prayer - Recalling the witnesses - Proved which has been allowed by the court below by the impugned order suffers from infirmity because of delay by which the said application has been moved - No other objections has been raised by the counsel –
Point of Law: It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist mainly that the application which has been moved, for permission to be granted for adducing the evidence by summoning them for the purposes of proving and prosecution sanction - Proved which has been allowed by the court below by the impugned order suffers from infirmity because of delay by which the said application has been moved - No other objections has been raised by the counsel - Learned has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist - Looking to the fact that the accused is already on bail and without getting the prosecution sanction proved, the case cannot proceed, hence Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order –
Result:Revision is rejected.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This Revision has been filed by Revisionist with a prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 9.10.2010 passed by Ld. Ist Additional Session Judge, Banda in S.T. No. 87-88 of 2016 (State Vs. Bajranga @ Ram Milan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2016 under Sections 302, 201/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, P.S. Kalinjar, District Banda by which the learned Judge illegally allowed the application dated 29.09.2020 moved by State under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses i.e. S.I. Anup Kumar Pandey and S.I. Gulab Chandra Sonkar.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist mainly that the application which has been moved by A.D.G.C. for permission to be granted for adducing the evidence of S.I., Anoop Kumar Pandey and S.I. Gulab Chandra Sonkar by summoning them for the purposes of proving Panchayat Nama and prosecution sanction under Section 3/25 of Arms Act as well as for getting the G.D. proved which has been allowed by the court below by the impugned order suffers from infirmity because of delay by which the said application has been moved. No other objections has been raised by the counsel.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist.
5. Looking to the fact that the accused is already on bail and without getting the prosecution sanction proved, the case cannot proceed, hence I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
6. This Revision has no force, hence the present Revision is rejected.
