Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2673 of 2010 Petitioner :- Mintu @ Pramod Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 8.6.2010 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar, in S. T. No.
1335 of 2007, State Vs. Mintu and others, whereby an application moved by
the prosecution u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the witnesses were
summoned.
It appears from the record that an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was also moved
earlier to the present application and that application could not be decided.
The complainant approached the High Court and a direction was issued by the
High Court that the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. be decided on day to day
basis. This order was passed on 12.5.2010. However, before this order, the
application had already been decided by the court on 2.4.2010 but that fact
was not brought to the notice of the High Court. After the High Court’s order
another application 64Ga was moved, which was allowed.
I have heard Mr. S. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by Mr. Pandey that once an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C.
was decided by the trial court on 2.4.2010 then there could be no propriety to
decide that application again by a contradictory order on 8.6.2010.
I do agree with this submission.
It appears from the record that the order dated 8.6.2010 was passed in
compliance of the order of the High court dated 12.5.2010. This order of the
High court could be complied with only if the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C.
would not have been decided earlier to the order of the High court and
because that application had already been decided on 2.4.2010 i.e. prior to the
order of the High court, hence there remained no application u/s 311 Cr.P.C.
to be decided in the garb of the order of the High Court. Once the application
for summoning the witness had already been decided on 2.4.2010, the High
Court’s order dated 12.5.2010 had taken its effect and the court cannot be said
to be justified in taking up the matter for decision again. Thus, the order
impugned in this revision is nothing but a nullity on which no action is
required. Accordingly, this order is liable to be set aside.
The revision is allowed and the order dated 8.6.2010 is set aside. The trial
court is directed to go by the order dated 2.4.2010.
Order Date :- 19.7.2010
Pcl