Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUNWAR PAL ALIAS KUMAR PAL versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kunwar Pal alias Kumar Pal v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 2423 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14926 (3 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

(Court No. 48)

Criminal Misc. Revision No. 2423 of 2007

***

Kunwar Pal alias Kumar Pal

son of Sri Harchandra, R/o Nagla Ugrasen

Police Station Bibinagar,

District Bulandshshar. ....... Revisionist .

Vs.

1.State of U.P.

2.Monu Kumar,

son of Sri Ghanshyam Singh Jatav,

Resident of Village Nagla Ugrasen,

Police Station Bibinagar,

District Bulandshahar. ............. Opp.Parties.

****

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1.Revisioner Kumwar Pal alias Kumar Pal, who is being prosecuted in (S.T. No. 70 of 2000) on a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 19 Bulandshahar, has come to this Court for setting aside an order dated 16.8.2007, vide which the trial court refused to recall P.W. 9 S.I. Karan Singh, P.W. 11Hari Chandra Panda P.W.12 S.I. Sharda Prasad Mishra for cross examination and rejected the application of the accused applicant.

2.Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar , Advocate for the revisionist and Sri Rajeev Tiwari, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

3.It is true that despite a few opportunities given to the revisionists by the Trial Sessions Judge, he did not avail them and not cross examined these witnesses.

4.The explanation of the accused, is that his earlier counsel abandoned the legal profession, and did not pay heed to him and he , therefore, had to engage another counsel who had moved an application for recalling the aforenoted witnesses for cross-examination. The forthcoming explanation is sufficient to recall these witnesses which the Trial Court refused.

5.Courts have always been lenient and considerate in such a situation to recall the witnesses because a decision after giving effective opportunity for cross examination has greater value and finality. The judicial tradition of latitude in such matters encapsulates the twin value of judicial magnanimity, and justice tempered with mercy. It has always been the consistent view of Courts that in such situation the expenses of recalling the witnesses may be saddled on the accused.

6.Revision is , therefore, allowed. The Trial Sessions Judge on 20.9.2007 will direct the accused to deposit the amount of expenditure of the aforenoted witnesses and will summon them for cross-examination and in case he fails to cross examine them, no further opportunity will be given to the accused.

7.Revision disposed of accordingly.

Dt: 3.9.2007

2423/07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.