Babu Lal and Others. Vs. Babu Lal and Others.

Babu Lal and Others. vs State of U.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jun 25, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/911069

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/911069
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Raj Mani Chauhan, J.
Decided On: Jun 25, 2010
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Case No. 2792 of 2010.
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein to Release the goods Viz., 103 Units of old and Used Digital Multifunction Print & Copying Machines with Standard Accessories, imported vide Bill of Entry No.793351, dated 26.02.2011, under Free as Second Hand Capital...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C.), 1973 - Sections 311, 482 ; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 12-B ;

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Babu Lal and Others.

Respondent

State of U.P.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C.), 1973 - Sections 311, 482 ; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 12-B ;

Excerpt

prayer: petition filed seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to release the goods viz., 103 units of old and used digital multifunction print & copying machines with standard accessories, imported vide bill of entry no.793351, dated 26.02.2011, under free as second hand capital goods in terms of para 2.17 read with definitions under 9.12 of the foreign trade policy 2009-2014 without imposing any restriction in the absence of specific restriction in para 2.17 of foreign trade policy and in para 2.33 of hand book of procedures 2009-2014 and any notification by 3rd respondent......(p.w.5). the learned additional district & sessions judge rejected their application on the ground that the investigating officer (p.w.5) had been cross-examined at length by two accused. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this finding of the learned additional district & sessions judge is illegal. every accused has right to cross-examine the witness. he cannot be deprived of his right only on the ground that the witness had already been cross-examined by other accused. the impugned order is, therefore, illegal and is liable to be set aside.4. learned a.g.a. supported the order of trial court. considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned a.g.a. every accused in the eye of law has right to cross-examine the witness who was examined by the prosecution. no accused can be deprived of his right only on the ground that some of the accused had cross-examined the witness. the learned additional district & sessions judge has rejected the application moved by the petitioners only on the ground that the witness (p.w.5) had been cross-examined by two other accused. this finding of learned additional district & sessions judge is illegal and the order dated 18.5.2010 rejecting the application of the petitioners is liable to be set aside. the petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed.5. the impugned order dated 18.5.2010 is set aside. the application moved by the petitioners for summoning the investigating officer (p.w.5) is allowed. the trial court is directed to summon the investigating officer sri vijendra pal singh (p.w.5) and afford an opportunity to the petitioners to cross- examine him. the petitioners is also directed that they will not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record.

2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 18.5.2010, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Lucknow whereby the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for recalling Sri Vijendra Pal Singh, the Investigating Officer (P.W.5) for cross-examination.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Sessions Trial No. 447 of 2005; State v. Ram Saharey and others, under Sections 302, 201, 12-B I.P.C., Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow was fixed on 1.4.2010. On that date, the Investigating Officer Sri Vijendra Pal Singh appeared before the court. He was examined by the prosecution and cross examined by the two accused. The rest of the accused i.e. petitioners moved an application for adjournment on the ground that their counsel was ill. On that date, their application was rejected by the trial court. On 18.5.2010, the petitioners moved another application through their counsel under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the Investigating Officer (P.W.5) for cross-examination as the petitioners were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer (P.W.5). The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge rejected their application on the ground that the Investigating Officer (P.W.5) had been cross-examined at length by two accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this finding of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge is illegal. Every accused has right to cross-examine the witness. He cannot be deprived of his right only on the ground that the witness had already been cross-examined by other accused. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. supported the order of trial court. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. Every accused in the eye of law has right to cross-examine the witness who was examined by the prosecution. No accused can be deprived of his right only on the ground that some of the accused had cross-examined the witness. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge has rejected the application moved by the petitioners only on the ground that the witness (P.W.5) had been cross-examined by two other accused. This finding of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge is illegal and the order dated 18.5.2010 rejecting the application of the petitioners is liable to be set aside. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed.

5. The impugned order dated 18.5.2010 is set aside. The application moved by the petitioners for summoning the Investigating Officer (P.W.5) is allowed. The trial court is directed to summon the Investigating Officer Sri Vijendra Pal Singh (P.W.5) and afford an opportunity to the petitioners to cross- examine him. The petitioners is also directed that they will not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Babu Lal and Others. vs State of U.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Raj Mani Chauhan, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C.), 1973 - Sections ...

Criminal