Allahabad High Court
Tribhuvan Singh @ T.N. Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 14 February, 2013
Author: Bala Krishna Narayana
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Reserved Court No. - 47 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17810 of 2012 Petitioner :- Tribhuvan Singh @ T.N. Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Arvind Srivastava,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate,Anurag Khanna Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The applicants, through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 04.04.2012 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Ghaziabad in Special Case No. 11 of 2009, C.B.I. V/s. Tribhuvan Singh and others, under Sections 120B r/w 120 I.P.C. & Sections 13 Sub-Section 1(d) r/w 13 Sub-Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. C.B.I. Ghaziabad, annexure no. 7 to the accompanying affidavit.
It appears from the perusal of the material brought on record that the applicants Tribhuvan Singh, Heera Singh Manral and Brijendra Narayan, who are facing trial for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 120 I.P.C. & Sections 13 Sub-Section 1(d) r/w 13 Sub-Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in Special Case No. 11 of 2009 pending before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Ghaziabad, moved applications 148 Kha/1 to 148 Kha/3, 149 Kha/1 to 149 Kha/4 and 150 Kha/1 to 150 Kha/3 before the court below with the prayers inter alia that the log book (37 bills), summary sheets of log book (53 bills) and summary sheets of log book (93 bills) be admitted to the record of the case. The aforesaid three applications were heard together by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption C.B.I., Ghaziabad and dismissed by him by the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the documents which are sought to be summoned are essential for effective cross-examination of PW9, Yogendra Singh by the applicants. He further submitted that the learned Special Judge committed a patent error of law in rejecting the prayer made by the applicants in the aforesaid applications upon a wholly erroneous premise that the said applications were moved by the applicants only with the mala fide intention of delaying the disposal of the trial. He also submitted that the view taken by the court below that the aforesaid documents which are in the nature of defence evidence were not liable to be taken on record during the course of the recording of prosecution evidence is also absolutely illegal. He lastly submitted that the Court below has erred in law in holding that the provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked till the recording of the defence evidence commences.
Per contra learned A.G.A. made his submissions in support of the impugned order.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned order as well as the other material brought on record, I do not find that there is any force in submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.
The Apex Court in the Case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 has held that an accused is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C. before the recording of the defence evidence commences. Even otherwise learned Special Judge has given cogent reasons in the impugned order for rejecting the prayers made by the applicants in the aforesaid applications. Learned counsel for the applicants has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order suffers from any illegally or infirmity or if allowed to stand may cause any irretrievable loss to the applicants. In my opinion, no interference with the impugned order is refused at this stage as the applicants will have full opportunity to invoke the provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the appropriate Stage. The application is accordingly dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 14.2.2013 M/A.