Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 267 of 2010 Petitioner :- Laley Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- K.K. Verma Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
This revision has been filed by the accused against the order dated
24.4.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC Ist, Shrawasti in
Session Trial No. 184 of 2003 ( Case Crime No. 28 of 1992) State Vs. Laley
Khan and others, under Sections 147,148,308,323 and 504 I.P.C., Police
Station Sirsi, district Shrawasti whereby the application moved by the
accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for permission to examine witness Yaqub
Khan as prosecution witness was allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused
the record of the case.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the court below committed
manifest error in permitting the prosecution to examine Yaqub Khan instead
of examining the other Investigating Officers of the case. If the Investigating
Officers are not produced by the prosecution, it will have adverse effect on
the interest of the accused and as such the order, passed by the court below
cannot be sustained.
Learned AGA has opposed this revision by contending that it is the choice of
the prosecution which witness is to be produced and which is not to be
produced . In the present case, when whereabouts of the Investigating Officers
are not known and their presence could not be secured despite repeated
efforts made by the prosecution, prosecution had no option except to adduce
secondary evidence for expeditious disposal of the case instead of lingering
the proceeding which has already become 18 years old and as such the order
passed by the court below is perfectly jusstified.
I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties. It
reveals that repeated efforts were made by the court below to summon the
Investigating Officer but could not be able to find out the whereabouts of the
Investigating Officer. In these circumstances, if the learned counsel below
permitted the prosecution to adduce secondary evidence by permitting
examination of Yaqub Khan, it cannot be said to be any illegality or
irregularity. Further more the order has been passed during the progress of the
proceeding of the interlocutory order against which the revision is not
competent.
In view of above, the revision is devoid of merit. The impugned order does
not call for any interference in this revision.
The revision is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Tripathi/20.7.2010