Allahabad High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation, Thru. ... vs Phool Chand Yadav And 10 Others on 17 November, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1174 of 2022 Revisionist :- Central Bureau Of Investigation, Thru. S.P., C.B.I. Sc-1, New Delhi Opposite Party :- Phool Chand Yadav And 10 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv P. Shukla Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist - CBI, and gone through the entire record.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to respondents is hereby dispensed with.
3. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC has been filed for quashing of the order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Court No. 5, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.239 of 2014, arising out of Crime No.019 of 2013, R.C. No.2(S) of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 353, 506 and 201 IPC lodged at Police Station Hathigawan, District Pratapgarh.
4. The prosecution had filed two applications numbered as B-128 and B-130 under Section 311 CrPC; in Application No. B-128, the CBI prayed for calling Akhilesh Kumar Gupta as a witness; Akhilesh Kumar Gupta had submitted document D-11 during the course of investigation to the SP, CBI, however, his name could not be mentioned in the list of witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and, therefore, his statement was required for just and appropriate decision in the case.
5. By way of filing Application No.B-130 the CBI prayed for calling witnesses, Ram Kailash Patel and Ramesh Chandra Kuril on the ground that they were witnesses in respect of documents D-34 to D-41 and their names could not be included in the list of witnesses by an inadvertent mistake, however, their statements are important for just and proper decision in the case.
6. The learned trial Court has rejected Application No.B-128 filed by the CBI on the ground that the document D-11 is in respect of electricity supply by the Sub-Division-II, Kunda and on the said document the signature of witness, Akhilesh Kumar Gupta were not there. The CBI did not take statement of Akhilesh Kumar Gupta under Section 161 CrPC during the course of investigation nor his name was mentioned in the list of witnesses cited by the CBI in the charge-sheet. It has been further held that the witnesses, who have been examined, had specifically stated that at the time of incident the electricity supply was there and lights were on. The CBI, in its application, has not stated that for what purpose the said witness would be required to be examined.
7. In view of aforesaid, the learned trial Court found that there was no justification for calling the said person as witness.
8. So far as Application No. B-130 for summoning Ram Kailash Patel and Ramesh Chandra Kuril is concerned, the trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that PW-6 has already been examined, who has proved the documents D-34 to D-41 and, therefore, there is no question of proving the same document by summoning Ram Kailash Patel and Ramesh Chandra Kuril.
9. In view of above, this Court does not find that the learned trial Court has committed any error of law or jurisdiction while rejecting the applications. Thus, this revision is dismissed being wholly misconceived.
[D.K. Singh, J.] Order Date :- 17.11.2022 MVS/-