# Pintu and another v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 269
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 1189 of 2002
- **Bench:** B.K. Rathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pintu-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-39815
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Cr.P.C. in Section 482 - the accused can
not be debarred from adducing evidence
in
defence
simply
because
while
recording their statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C., they answered in negative to
a question whether they want to adduce
evidence.

Held-Para 8

The fact that the accused has stated in
reply to question no. 10 that they do not
want to adduce any evidence in defence
is of no avail. They cannot be debarred
from adducing evidence in defence on
that
score.
The
learned
Additional
Sessions Judge, therefore, shall pass an
order under S.232 Cr.P.C. and thereafter
call upon the petitioners to enter on their
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
270
defence and adduce evidence in defence
under Section 233 Cr.P.C. In case, the
petitioners after the order is passed
under Section 232 Cr.P.C. wishes to
produce evidence in defence, they shall
be permitted to produce evidence in
defence.
This
procedure
shall
be
followed
by
the
learned
Additional
Sessions Judges notwithstanding that
the petitioners have said in reply to the
question that they do not want to
produce any evidence in defence.

## Text

1All] Pintu and another V. State of U.P.
269
shall produce her before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hathras within one week for
sending her to the Medical Board for the
purpose already indicated earlier. In the
event of their failure to take petitioner no.
1 from Nari Niketan the Hathras Police
will take her before the C.J.M., Hathras
for doing the needful in accordance with
law.

26. Our direction to release
petitioner
no.
2
vide
order
dated
18.2.2002 shall remain in operation till
the receipt of Report of the Medical
Board of the C.J.M., Hathras.

27. The Criminal Case instituted by
the Allahabad Police shall proceed in
accordance with law.

28. As prayed for by Mr. U.K.
Saxena,
Advocate,
who
has
filed
subsequently a further Vakalatnama of
petitioner no. 1, his appearance is
cancelled.

29. In regard to the security of the
premises of this court we have already
directed the Registrar General to appraise
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who is
administrative head of the court, for doing
the needful and in that view of the matter
no further direction of ours is required.

30. The General Police Diary of
Police Station Colenganj, Allahabad is
being returned back to Mr. A.K. Verma,
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate.

31. Let a copy of this order be
dispatched forthwith to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hathras for a follow up action
by the Medical Board and him as well.

32. Let a copy of this order be also
handed over to Mr. A.K. Verma, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate,
forthwith, for its intimation to and follow
up action by the Superintendent of Police,
Hathras.

33. This writ petition is disposed of
accordingly, but without cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B.K. RATHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1189 of
2002

Pintu and another
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri R.P. Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Cr.P.C. in Section 482 - the accused can
not be debarred from adducing evidence
in
defence
simply
because
while
recording their statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C., they answered in negative to
a question whether they want to adduce
evidence.

Held-Para 8

The fact that the accused has stated in
reply to question no. 10 that they do not
want to adduce any evidence in defence
is of no avail. They cannot be debarred
from adducing evidence in defence on
that
score.
The
learned
Additional
Sessions Judge, therefore, shall pass an
order under S.232 Cr.P.C. and thereafter
call upon the petitioners to enter on their
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
270
defence and adduce evidence in defence
under Section 233 Cr.P.C. In case, the
petitioners after the order is passed
under Section 232 Cr.P.C. wishes to
produce evidence in defence, they shall
be permitted to produce evidence in
defence.
This
procedure
shall
be
followed
by
the
learned
Additional
Sessions Judges notwithstanding that
the petitioners have said in reply to the
question that they do not want to
produce any evidence in defence.

(Delivered by Hon'ble B.K. Rathi, J.)

1. The applicants are accused in
S.T.No. 1302 of 1999 State Vs. Pintu and
another, under Section 376 I.P.C. pending
in the court of XI Addl. Sessions Judge,
Bulandshahr. In the case, the statements
of the applicants were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 25/07/2001. One
of the questions, which was question no.
10, put to the applicants was whether they
want to adduce evidence in defence. The
reply given to this question by the
applicants was in negative.

2. Thereafter, the applicants moved
an application that the statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in the
absence of the their counsel; that the reply
to question no. 10 in negative has been
recorded by mistake, that they want to
adduce oral as well as documentary
evidence in defence. The request has been
rejected by the impugned order, dated
08/01/2002 by the trail court. Aggrieved
by it, this petition has be preferred.

3. I have heard Sri R.P.S. Yadav,
learned Counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.G.A.

4. The argument that wrong reply to
the question no. 10 was recorded by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge cannot be
accepted. However, for this reason the
applicants cannot be debarred from
producing oral or documentary evidence
in defence.

5. The procedure for trail before a
court of Sessions has been provided in
Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 consisting of Sections
225 to 237 Cr.P.C. Sections 231 and 233
of the code provide that Sessions Judge
after recording the entire evidence of the
prosecution and examining the accused
and hearing the prosecution and the
defence may record the order of acquittal
if he considers that there is no evidence
that the accused has committed the
offence. Section 233 further provides that
if no order of acquittal is recorded under
Section 232 Cr.P.C.; the accused shall be
called upon to enter on his defence and to
adduce any evidence he may have in
support thereof. For the purpose of clarity
Sections 232 and 233(1) Cr.P.C. are
reproduced below :

"Section 232: Acquittal - If, after taking
the
evidence
for
the
prosecution,
examining the accused and hearing the
prosecution and the defence on the point,
the Judge considers that there is no
evidence that the accused committed the
offence, the Judge shall record an order of
acquittal.

Section 233(1) : Entering upon defence -
Where the accused is not acquitted under
Section 232, he shall be called upon to
enter on his defence and adduce any
evidence he may have in support thereof."

6. From the perusal of the provisions
of Chapter XVIII the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, especially Sections 232
& 233 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the
1All] Daya Shanker Singh V. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Irrigation) & others 271
question whether the accused want to
produce evidence in defence should not
be put to the accused while recording
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, question no, 10 was wrongly
put to the petitioners while examining
them under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

7. In view of the above provisions
the question - Whether the accused want
to adduce evidence in defence should not
have been put to the accused while
recording statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. in Sessions trail. After the
prosecution evidence is recorded and the
statement of the accused is also recorded
an order should be passed under Sections
232 Cr.P.C. If the accused are not
acquitted by that order on the ground that
there is no evidence that the accused
committed the offence, only then the
accused should be called upon to enter
into his defence and adduce any evidence
he may have in support thereof as
provided under Section 233 CR.P.C.

8. In view of what have been said
above, The fact that the accused has stated
in reply to question no. 10 that they do
nowt want to adduce any evidence in
defence is of no avail. They cannot be
debarred from adducing evidence in
defence on that score. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, call
upon the petitioners to enter on their
defence and adduce evidence in defence
under Section 233 Cr.P.C. In case, the
petitioners after the order is passed under
Section 232 Cr.P.C. whishes to produce
evidence in defence, they shall be
permitted to produce evidence in defence.
This procedure shall be followed by the
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judges
notwithstanding that the petitioners have
said in reply to the question that they do
not want to produce any evidence in
defence.

The petition is finally disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3002 of 2002

Daya Shanker Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through Principal Secretary
(Irrigation)and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Constitution of India - Article 226 - a
vigilance enquiry - No writ as against a
vigilance enquiry as it does not give rise
to any cause of action.

Held - Para 2

A vigilance enquiry is only in the nature
of a preliminary enquiry is only for the
subjective satisfaction of the employer.
It is possible that some fresh evidence or
material may have become available to
the
department
implicating
the
petitioner in some misconduct that may
not have been available earlier. Hence
there is no absolute bar to holding of a
fresh enquiry, even assuming that he
was exonerated earlier, provided there is
some fresh material. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has relied on the G.O.
dated
20/12/65
in
support
of
his
submission that after an employee has
been exonerated in an enquiry a fresh
enquiry or a vigilance enquiry cannot be