Allahabad High Court
Krishna Deo Pandey & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010
Author: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Bench: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Court No. - 48 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 741 of 2001 Petitioner :- Krishna Deo Pandey & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.N. Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants against the order dated 22.8.2000 passed by the ACJM 1st Gorakhpur in criminal case no.738/2000 whereby the application moved by the applicants for summoning the record of cross case State Vs. Ram Adhar from the High Court was rejected.
It appears from the record that the Sessions Judge in criminal revision no.151/98, Krishna Deo Pandey and others Vs. State of U.P. and another directed that criminal case nos.1291/94 and 2414/97 be tried together as these were the cross cases of each other. One of these cases was filed by the applicants against the other party and the other case was filed by the other party against the applicants. The opposite party approached the High Court in criminal revision no.329/99, Ram Adhar Pandey and another Vs. State of U.P. and another and got the order passed by the Sessions Judge in criminal revision no.151/98 stayed, but inspite of this stay order the trial court proceeded with the trial of the case against the revisionist. In such situation, the revisionist moved an application for staying the proceedings of that case and to summon the record of the cross case from the High Court so as to enable the court to proceed with both the cases together. That application was rejected.
Heard Mr. S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
As it is not disputed that both the aforementioned cases are cross cases, therefore, in the fitness of things both the cases should ordinarily be tried simultaneously. Once order of the Sessions Judge passed in the aforesaid revision was stayed, meaning thereby, that the order to proceed simultaneously was stayed that would mean that the case against the applicants was allowed to proceed but in the interest of justice this case should not have been allowed to proceed as in case the revision filed before the High Court is dismissed then definitely, the order of the Sessions Judge would be revived and both the cases would run simultaneously. Therefore, the trial court should have waited for the decision of the proceedings before the High Court and should not have proceeded with the case against the applicants. In such view of the matter, I do feel that it is a case where the application should be allowed.
Accordingly, application is allowed. Order dated 22.8.2000 is set aside. Judgment shall not be pronounced in case no.738/2000 by the trial court against the applicants till some decision is received from the High Court this way or that way, however, the evidence may be recorded by the trial court.
Order Date :- 6.8.2010 T. Sinha