Allahabad High Court
Amarjeet @ Kaluwa vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 16 September, 2019
Author: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30532 of 2019 Applicant :- Amarjeet @ Kaluwa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Afzal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant has requested for deleting the opposite party no. 2 from array of parties, thereafter, he is permitted to delete the name of opposite party no. 2 from the array of parties.
This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been given with request to quash the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hapur in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 438 of 2018, under sections 302, 307, 201, 376D, 394, 411 and 120 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Hapur Dehat District Hapur and also seeking direction for providing copy of the CD containing videographic statement of injured Nitin under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the applicant.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the said CD is part of statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the copy thereof was not supplied to him under section 207 Cr.P.C., therefore, an application was given under section 207 Cr.P.C. for providing the copy of the videographic statement of injured Nitin. It was also requested in the application that unless the same is provided to him, the cross-examination of Investigating Officer Kaushalendra Singh could be deferred.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that said Investigating Officer even then was cross-examined on the same day but the learned trial court vide order dated 24.07.2019 rejected the application by making observation that the electronic document is not a part of CD and the injured has already been examined by the prosecution. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that the examination of the other witnesses have already taken place and at this belated stage, a copy of the said CD could not be provided.
It appears that the learned trial court became a little more technical while disposing the application. The CD was part of the electronic document and the statement of injured was recorded in it and a copy thereof may be provided if it was being demanded by the defence on payment of requisite fee. Therefore, the learned trial court should not have been involved in this technicality and the same should have been provided or a direction may be issued to the concerned section for providing the same in due course. But instead of passing the said order, the application itself was rejected, the rejection of the application appears to be unnecessary.
Considering the fact that the Investigating Officer who was present on that date was cross-examined from the side of defence as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally with the direction that after requiring requisite fee for preparation of the copy of the CD, the same may be provided to the defence.
Order Date :- 16.9.2019 Bhanu