Allahabad High Court
Anuj Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 March, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5174 of 2021 Applicant :- Anuj Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Beerendra Singh Pal,Manoj Kumar Keshari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Beerendra Singh Pal, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging order dated 18.01.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1, Ballis in Sessions Trial No 357 of 2017 (State vs VS. Raju Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime No.147 of 2005 under Section 307 I..P.C. Police Station-Bairia, District- Ballia.
3. Learned counsel for applicants contends that entire papers which are required to be supplied to the accused applicants as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were not supplied. Consequently, applicants approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18698 of 2018 (Anuj Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and another), which was disposed of finally by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2018. For ready reference order dated 25.05.2018 is reproduced herein-under:-
"Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Keshari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the impugned order dated 18.04.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ballia in Sessions Trial No.357 of 2017, State Vs. Raju Singh and another (arising out of Case Crime No.147 of 2005), under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Bairia, District Ballia and for a further direction to the Sessions Judge, Ballia to provide the copies of the First Information Report dated 16.10.2005 and charge sheet along with case diary including all other documents relating to Case Crime No.147 of 2005, under Section 307 IPC to the applicants.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that by means of the order impugned, applicants' application seeking copies of the police report, report recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other papers accompanying the police report under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. sent to the Magistrate, which they need to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, has been rejected.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that no cogent reason for rejecting that application has been assigned except that the record was lost and the record of the trial court had been reconstructed. The accused has a right to receive all of the aforesaid papers by virtue of Section 207 Cr.P.C. in any case instituted on a police report, which is to be done by the Magistrate before he commits the case. In the instant case, it is applicants' submission that they were never supplied the aforesaid documents and now that the matter is before the Sessions, where trial has begun, denial of copies of police report and other documents sought would amount not only to violation of the statutory provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., but of the right to a fair trial, which is a constitutional guarantee to every accused by dint of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The learned A.G.A. does not propose to file a counter affidavit though he has made his submissions in support of the order impugned. He has submitted that the purpose of making application is to delay the trial.
In the opinion of the Court, non-supply of these essential documents would itself be fatal to the trial and might result in further delay besides irreparable prejudice to the accused.
Under these circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned order is not sustainable. This application is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The application dated 28.04.2018 made by the applicants, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 2 to the affidavit, stands allowed.
The learned Sessions Judge is directed to provide the copies of documents mentioned at the foot of the said application within 10 days of receipt of certified copy of this order. "
4. In spite of order dated 25.05.2018 passed by this Court prosecution papers were not supplied and the trial of case has commenced. He has then invited the attention of the Court to the order sheet, which is at page 30 of the paper book. On the basis of the same, learned counsel for applicants contends that continuance of trial without complying with the order dated 25.05.2018 is manifestly illegal and contrary to the mandate of the Code itself.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed the present application. He submits that this Court vide order dated 25.05.2018 directed the Sessions Judge, Ballia to provide the copies of documents mentioned at the foot of the said application within ten days. In case aforesaid order was not complied with within the time period then the remedy of the applicants was to approach this Court by moving an application under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. However. aforesaid exercise has not been undertaken. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the same cause of action is not maintainable. Same has been engineered only to delay the trial. He therefore contends that no interference is required by this court and the present application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State, the Court finds that present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the second application for the same cause of action. Hence same is not maintainable. There is no change of circumstances either. In case order dated 25.05.2018 passed by this Court was not complied with, remedy of applicant was to file contempt application. As the limitation for filing contempt application has expired, the same cannot be a ground for filing second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, present application is not maintainable and therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.3.2021/YK