Mustakeem Vs. the State of U.P.

Mustakeem vs The State of U.P.

Disposition Revision dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Aug 07, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/488504

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/488504
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: J.C. Gupta, J.
Decided On: Aug 07, 2001
Case Number: Crl. Revn. No. 59 of 2001
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Revision dismissed

Case Summary

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

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision dismissed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302 and 364; Arms Act - Sections 25; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1974 - Sections 311

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mustakeem

Advocate Samit Gopal, ;Rohit Agrawal and ;O.P. Agrawal, Advs.

Respondent

The State of U.P.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302 and 364; Arms Act - Sections 25; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1974 - Sections 311
Reported In: 2002CriLJ1516

Excerpt

.....the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 4. it is well settled that every criminal court possesses power under section 311, cr. after all, function of the criminal courts is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better......three witnesses namely station officer, arvind singh, pundir, f.i.r. writer noor mohammad and the doctor who conducted post mortem examination of the deceased.3. the order under revision is challenged merely on the ground that as witnesses of fact had turned hostile there was absolutely no need for the trial court to summon the aforesaid witnesses. it is further submitted that after the prosecution evidence had been closed the trial court had no power to fill up lacuna in the posecution case. after examining the facts and circumstances, this court finds that this revision sans merits.4. it is well settled that every criminal court possesses power under section 311, cr.p.c. to summon or recall any witness at any stage of trial for a just decision of the case. in a case where the prosecutor fails to produce relevant material either on account of his oversight or mistake, it is the duty of every criminal court to correct such laches or mistakes for a just decision of the case. if such a course is adopted by the court, it cannot be said that it is filling up lacuna in prosecution case. a lacuna in prosecution is not to be equated with the fall out of an oversight committed by a public prosecutor during trial either in producing relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. it should be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. after all, function of the criminal courts is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better. this court, therefore, does not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that while summoning three witnesses under section 311, cr.p.c. the trial court filled up lacuna.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

J.C. Gupta, J.

1. Heard Sri Samit Gopal holding brief of Sri Rohit Agrawal for the applicant in revision and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This revision is directed against the order dated 21-12-2000 passed by VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No. 890/99 under Sections 364/302, I.P.C. and under Section 25 of Arms Act, allowing the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for summoning three witnesses namely Station Officer, Arvind Singh, Pundir, F.I.R. writer Noor Mohammad and the doctor who conducted post mortem examination of the deceased.

3. The order under revision is challenged merely on the ground that as witnesses of fact had turned hostile there was absolutely no need for the trial Court to summon the aforesaid witnesses. It is further submitted that after the prosecution evidence had been closed the trial Court had no power to fill up lacuna in the posecution case. After examining the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that this revision sans merits.

4. It is well settled that every criminal Court possesses power under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to summon or recall any witness at any stage of trial for a just decision of the case. In a case where the prosecutor fails to produce relevant material either on account of his oversight or mistake, it is the duty of every criminal Court to correct such laches or mistakes for a just decision of the case. If such a course is adopted by the Court, it cannot be said that it is filling up lacuna in prosecution case. A lacuna in prosecution is not to be equated with the fall out of an oversight committed by a public prosecutor during trial either in producing relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. It should be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the criminal Courts is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better. This Court, therefore, does not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that while summoning three witnesses under Section 311, Cr.P.C. the trial Court filled up lacuna in the prosecution case.

5. In the instant case murder of as many as three persons were committed and dead bodies were alleged to have been recovered from the house of the accused. There is also an allegation that a blood stained knife was recovered on the pointing out of accused Mustakeem, therefore, even if the witnesses of fact had not supported the prosecution story, it was still open for the prosecution to bring on record circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The impugned order of summoning was, thus, necessary for a just decision of the case.

6. For the above reasons, this revision is dismissed and the interim order dated 10-1-2001 is hereby vacated. The trail Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible on day to day basis.

7. Office is directed to communicate this order to Sessions Judge concerned forthwith.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2001 Same Parties Mustakeem vs The State of U.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge J.C. Gupta, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302 and 364; Arms Ac...

Criminal