Ramashanker Vs. State of U.P.

Ramashanker vs State of U.P.

Disposition Revision allowed Court Allahabad Decided May 16, 1996

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483827

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/483827
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: G.S.N. Tripathi, J.
Decided On: May 16, 1996
Case Number: Criminal Revn. No. 505 of 1996
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Revision allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additio...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision allowed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramashanker

Advocate B.N. Rai, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302
Cases Referred: State v. Nanhkau and
Reported In: 1997CriLJ1102

Excerpt

- u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - 3. in the interest of justice, it is essential that in a serious case like this, under section 302, ipc the accused be given abundant opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.orderg.s.n. tripathi, j.1. this revision is directed against the order dated 2-4-1996 passed by the district judge, kanpur nagar in s.t. no. 134 of 1995 state v. nanhkau and others.2. formerly, the accused had engaged no private counsel. therefore, amicus curiae was provided to him at a later stage. on 17-8-95, the accused engaged a private counsel. thereafter, he prayed that two witnesses, namely p. w. 1 gauri shankar and pw-2 arvind kumar, who had already been cross-examined by the learned amicus curiae, be recalled for further cross-examination. the learned lower court has rejected this application without assigning any reason.3. in the interest of justice, it is essential that in a serious case like this, under section 302, ipc the accused be given abundant opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. this is a question of life and death for the accused.4. in the interest of justice, it is ordered that the learned lower court shall recall the two witnesses aforesaid for cross-examination by the private counsel for the accused.5. the revision, is therefore, allowed. the order dated 2-4-1996 passed by the learned lower court is set aside. the learned lower court shall recall the aforesaid these two witnesses only for further cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused on 2-7-1996. thereafter, proceedings shall be taken on day to day basis and he shall decide the matter in accordance with law.a copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the revisionist on payment of usual charges.

Full Judgment

ORDER

G.S.N. Tripathi, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 2-4-1996 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 134 of 1995 State v. Nanhkau and others.

2. Formerly, the accused had engaged no private counsel. Therefore, Amicus Curiae was provided to him at a later stage. On 17-8-95, the accused engaged a private counsel. Thereafter, he prayed that two witnesses, namely P. W. 1 Gauri Shankar and PW-2 Arvind Kumar, who had already been cross-examined by the learned Amicus Curiae, be recalled for further cross-examination. The learned lower Court has rejected this application without assigning any reason.

3. In the interest of justice, it is essential that in a serious case like this, under Section 302, IPC the accused be given abundant opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. This is a question of life and death for the accused.

4. In the interest of justice, it is ordered that the learned lower Court shall recall the two witnesses aforesaid for cross-examination by the private counsel for the accused.

5. The revision, is therefore, allowed. The order dated 2-4-1996 passed by the learned lower Court is set aside. The learned lower Court shall recall the aforesaid these two witnesses only for further cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused on 2-7-1996. Thereafter, proceedings shall be taken on day to day basis and he shall decide the matter in accordance with law.

A copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the revisionist on payment of usual charges.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1996 Same Parties Ramashanker vs State of U.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge G.S.N. Tripathi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302

Criminal