# Rohit &Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 136
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23921 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajul Bhargava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rohit-ors-v-state-of-u-p-44414
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Recalling of
witness for examination- power to recall
must be exercised with care, caution and
circumspection and only for strong and
valid reasons-principle of magnanimity-
a balance between accused- prosecution
and society (Para 8, 9, 10, 11& 12)

Witness- P.W.1 examined- applicant sought
adjournments numerous times- stop order
passed-
P.W.2
examined-
supported
the
prosecution in examination-in-chief- resiled
from
his
earlier
statement
in
crossexamination-
declared
hostile
witness-
application to cross-examine P.W.1-application
rejected by trial court.

The accused-applicants did not sought an
opportunity call the P.W. 1 again when the
stop order was passed but when the P.W. 2
turned hostile. The ill-intention of the accusedapplicant is apparent on the face of it as the
application for recall was moved after more
than eight months have elapsed after closing
the opportunity of cross-examination.

No error. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
dismissed.

Chronological list of Cases Cited:-

## Text

136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
always open to the Magistrate exercising
powers vested in him by law while taking
cognizance of offence as provided under
sub-sections (a) (b) (c) of Section 190 (1)
Cr.P.C.

15. Here the point in question is that
the material collected during course of the
investigation
did
not
justify
taking
cognizance of the case as the material was
not sufficient for proceeding further.
However, considering averments made in
the protest petition, the Magistrate was of
the view that the material produced can be
scrutinized in better way on the judicial
side and, with that view in mind, in order
to secure ends of justice, considered the
protest petition as complaint and thus
exercised powers vested in him under
Section 190 (1) (c) Cr.P.C., which Section
is very much extracted hereinbelow for
ready reference;

"190. Cognizance of offences
by Magistrates.

(1) Subject to the provisions of
this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first
class, and any Magistrate of the second
class specially empowered in this behalf
under sub- section
(2), may taken
cognizance of any offence.

(a) .......

(b) .......

(c) upon information received
from any person other than a police
officer, or upon his own knowledge, that
such offence has been committed."

16. Bare reading of the aforesaid
sub-section (c) of Section 190 (1) Cr.P.C.
gives
unequivocal
expression
and
impression
that
the
Magistrate
is
competent to take cognizance upon
"information received from any person
other than a police officer". Therefore,
cognizance of case in shape of the protest
petition falls under this category (190 (1)
(c) Cr.P.C.). Entirety of the facts and
circumstances of this case in hand when
taken as a whole reflects that the
substantial justice has been tried to be
done to the applicant and it is up to the
complainant-applicant to cooperate with
the Court and the prosecution in order to
unravel the truth.

17. For the reasons aforesaid, I do
not find any infirmity or illegality in the
order impugned dated 08.06.2018 passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor,
in Misc. F.R. Case No.411 of 2017
whereby the protest petition has been
converted
into
complaint
case
and
accordingly cognizance has been taken
against opposite party nos.2 to 6.

18. Consequently, the instant
application being devoid of merit is
dismissed.

19. It is made clear that observation
made in this order shall have no bearing
on the merits of the case and shall not
prejudice the trial court while deciding the
case on merits.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJUL BHARGAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23921 of 2019
(u/s -482 Cr. P.C.)

Rohit &Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ......Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri
Pramod
Shukla,
Sri
J.P.N.Raj.
1 All. Rohit & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
137
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Recalling of
witness for examination- power to recall
must be exercised with care, caution and
circumspection and only for strong and
valid reasons-principle of magnanimity-
a balance between accused- prosecution
and society (Para 8, 9, 10, 11& 12)

Witness- P.W.1 examined- applicant sought
adjournments numerous times- stop order
passed-
P.W.2
examined-
supported
the
prosecution in examination-in-chief- resiled
from
his
earlier
statement
in
crossexamination-
declared
hostile
witness-
application to cross-examine P.W.1-application
rejected by trial court.

The accused-applicants did not sought an
opportunity call the P.W. 1 again when the
stop order was passed but when the P.W. 2
turned hostile. The ill-intention of the accusedapplicant is apparent on the face of it as the
application for recall was moved after more
than eight months have elapsed after closing
the opportunity of cross-examination.

No error. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
dismissed.

Chronological list of Cases Cited:-

1. (2016) 8 SCC 762 State of Haryana Vs Ram
Meher and others

2. (2015) 8 SCC 787 Bablu Kumar and others
Vs. State of Bihar and another

3. (2010) 6 SCC Sidhartha Vashist alias
ManuSharmaV.State (NCT of Delhi)

4. (2012) 4SCC 516 Rattiram and othersVs.
State of Madhya Pradesh

5. (2014) 2 SCC 401 J.Jayalalithaa and others
Vs. State of Karnataka and others

6. (1999) 8 SCC 715 State of Karnataka Vs.
K.Yarappa Reddy
7. (2002) 7 SCC 334 Mohd. Khalid Vs. State of
West Bengal

8. (2001) 4 SCC 667 State of U.P. Vs.
Shambhu Nath Singh and others

9. (2001)6 SCC 135 N.G. Dastane Vs. Shrikant
Shivde (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava, J.)

1. Heard Sri J.P.N. Raj, Advocate,
holding brief of Sri Pramod Shukla,
learned counsel for the applicants and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to setaside the impugned order dated 6.6.2019
passed by Sessions Judge, Baghpat in S.T.
No.403 of 2017 (State vs. Rohit and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.122
of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149,
302/34
I.P.C.,
P.S.
Baleni,
District
Baghpat whereby the learned Judge
dismissed the application under Section
311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW-1 for crossexamination.

3. Submission of the learned counsel
for the applicants is that the learned
Sessions Judge has illegally closed the
opportunity of cross-examination by the
defence on behalf of the applicants vide
order dated 19.9.2018 and further the
application for recalling the aforesaid
order has also been illegally rejected by
the learned Judge vide impugned order
dated 6.6.2019. Learned counsel has
submitted that if the defence is not given
proper opportunity to cross-examine PW1- Mange Ram, who is the first informant
of the case, it will cause a serious
prejudice to defence case as his testimony
would go unrebutted. It is further argued
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that it is a fundamental right of an accused
to have fair trial as envisaged under
Article 21 of the Constitution and if the
impugned orders are not set-aside then the
main object of affording fair trial to
accused in the spirit of life and liberty
shall be greatly jeopardized. It is further
argued that the courts have an over-riding
duty to maintain public confidence in the
administration of justice - often referred
to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the
'majesty of the law'. It is submitted that
the powers to recall a witness under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. is a very wide and
could be exercised for the just decision of
a
case.
The
Section
311
Cr.P.C.
empowers the Courts to recall material
witness at any stage of enquiry or trial, if
his evidence appears to it to be essential
to the arrival at the just decision of a case.
The aforesaid impugned orders passed by
the courts below are patently illegal and
arbitrary and further no prejudice shall be
caused to the prosecution, inasmuch as,
the trial is already going on. Therefore,
the cross-examination of PW-1, who is
the first informant and eye-witness, is
absolutely essential to arrive at just
decision of the case. There was no wilful
default on the parts of the applicants in
not cross-examining the PW-1 with any
oblique purpose, yet the trial court
committed manifest illegality by closing
the same vide order dated 19.9.2018.

4. Before, I deal with the arguments
raised by learned
counsel for the
applicants,
I
may
record
that
the
applicants are accused in a broad day light
double murder case which according to
prosecution took place on 28.7.2017 at
7:30 A.M. The F.I.R. was lodged by PW1 on the same day at 8:45 A.M. After
thorough investigation, charge-sheet was
laid against the accused and the case was
committed before the sessions court. The
trial commenced on denial by the accused
and charges were framed on 23.4.2018
under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C.
Then, 26.6.2018 was fixed for recording
of evidence and on that date the
examination-in-chief
of
the
first
informant/eye-witness Sri Mange Ram
was recorded. He narrated the prosecution
version and the manner in which the
applicants gunned down two persons.
However, an adjournment application was
moved on behalf of the accusedapplicants and the cross-examination was
suspended. The court fixed 12.7.2018 on
which date PW-1, Mange Ram was
present
and
again
an
adjournment
application was moved on behalf of
accused which was allowed with specific
direction
that
on
the
next
date
adjournment shall not be allowed. On the
next date i.e. 26.7.2018, the witness was
not present and the court posted the case
for 10.8.2018. However, on 10.8.2018 as
the accused could not be produced from
the jail before the court the case was
adjourned and 24.8.2018 was fixed. On
24.8.2018 PW-1 was present but the
advocates had abstained from work due to
which cross-examination could not take
place. The trial was then fixed for
5.9.2019 and on that date PW-1, Mange
Ram was present in the court, yet again an
adjournment application was moved on
behalf of the accused-applicants and the
trial court accommodated them and
19.9.2018 was fixed. On 19.9.2018 the
accused were produced from the jail and
the witness, Mange Ram was also present,
however, an adjournment application was
moved on behalf of the accused- Rohit
and Billu through their counsels and the
learned Judge finding no justification for
adjourning the case on that date closed the
opportunity for cross-examination of PW-
1 All. Rohit & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
139
1 after recording reasons the court fixed
for 4.10.2018 for recording of remaining
evidence.

5. I may record that on 4.10.2018,
the first date fixed after closing the
opportunity to cross-examine PW-1, no
application on behalf of the defence to
recall the order dated 19.9.2018 was
moved,
however,
on
that
date
examination-in-chief of PW-2- Manjeet,
an eye witness, was recorded who is the
son of PW-1. He fully corroborated the
statement of PW-1 and the prosecution
version contained in the F.I.R. He was
also not cross-examined by the defence on
that date and the court fixed 14.11.2018
for his cross-examination. On 14.11.2018
the learned Judge waited for the defence
counsels till 3:45 P.M. but no one turned
up and the court in the interest of justice
fixed 3.12.2018. The order-sheet reflects
that the PW-2 did not appear before the
court
on
3.12.2018,
11.12.2018,
21.12.2018, 1.1.2019, 4.1.2019, 17.1.2019
28.1.2019 and the trial was adjourned on
account of presiding officer being on
leave, the advocates abstained from work,
on account of condolences and for nonappearance of PW-2 lingered on and more
than a dozen dates were fixed, ultimately
PW-2, Manjeet appeared before the court
on 28.5.2019 and he was cross-examined
by the defence and now the said witness
who had supported the prosecution
version
in
his
examination-in-chief
recorded on 4.10.2018 took a U-turn and
resiled from his earlier statement and
stated that the names of accusedapplicants was disclosed by his father and
had witnessed the incident for quite some
distance and had only heard the sound of
fire. He has stated that he had only seen
the accused from their back and not their
faces. At that stage, an application was
moved by the DGC (criminal) to declare
the said witness hostile and be permitted
to cross-examine him. The learned DGC
cross-examined
the
said
witness.
Thereafter, the most glaring fact in the
present case is that an application for
recalling PW-1 for cross-examination was
moved on 3.6.2019 which was ultimately
rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on
6.6.2019. The order dated 19.9.2018
remained unchallenged.

6. I have carefully gone through the
impugned order passed by the learned
Judge
and
the
aforesaid
admitted/unrebutted facts as contended in
the impugned order as well as from the
order-sheet, it is apparent that the
applicants who are facing trial in a
heinous double murder broad day light
case deliberately did not cross-examine
PW-1 on several dates probably for the
reasons that they were exerting pressure
on PW-1 for entering into compromise so
that he resiles from his examination-inchief recorded on 26.6.2018. The trial
court
despite
affording
sufficient
opportunity to the accused-applicants for
cross-examining PW-1, ultimately closed
the opportunity for cross-examination on
19.9.2018. I may further record that
4.10.2018 was fixed for recording of
remaining evidence and on that date
examination-in-chief of PW-2, son of
PW-1, an eye witness was recorded in
which he has fully supported and
corroborated the prosecution version and
the statement of PW-1. On that date also
no application was moved on behalf of
applicants-accused for recalling PW-1 for
cross-examination. The eye-witness PW-2
was also not cross-examined on 4.10.2018
and 14.11.2018 and then after 3.12.2018
and subsequent dates the said witness did
not appear before the court may be due to
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fear of accused or he was under coercion
to resile from his statement and ultimately
he appeared on 28.5.2019. He was crossexamined by the defence and he resiled
from his examination-in-chief and, thus,
declared hostile by the prosecution.
Thereafter, application for recalling PW-1
moved on behalf of applicants on
3.6.2019 makes it crystal clear that when
the applicants-accused had succeeded in
their evil design to win over PW-2 who
appeared before the court on 28.5.2018
and remained absent for more than a
dozen dates, the application for recalling
PW-1 for cross-examination was moved.

7. I am also of the considered
opinion that the mala fide of the accusedapplicants is apparent on the face of it as
the application for recall of PW-1 for
cross-examination
was
deliberately
moved after more than eight months after
the cross-examination was closed by the
learned Judge.

8. It is well settled by catena of
decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must
be exercised with the care, caution and
circumspection and only for strong and
valid reasons. The recall of a witness
already examined should not be a matter
of course and discretion given to the court
in this regard has to be exercised
judicially to prevent failure of justice. The
object of the provision as a whole is to do
justice not only from the point of view of
the accused and the prosecution but also
from the point of view of an orderly
society.

9. The Court is fully conscious of the
position that after all the trial is basically
for the prisoners/accused and the Court
should afford an opportunity to them in
the fairest manner possible. At the same
time, the Court should bear in mind that
fair trial entails the interest of the accused,
the victim and the society and, therefore,
the grant of fair and proper opportunities
to the persons concerned, must be ensured
being a constitutional goal, as well as a
human right. Recalling of witnesses has to
be applied on the basis of judicially
established and accepted principles.

10. In State of Haryana v. Ram
Mehar and others (2016) 8 SCC 762, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:-

"23. In Bablu Kumar and
others v. State of Bihar and another,
(2015) 8 SCC 787 the Court referred to
the authorities in Sidhartha Vashisht
alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC, Rattiram and
others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2012) 4 SCC 516, J. Jayalalithaa and
others v. State of Karnataka and others
(2014) 2 SCC 401, State of Karnataka v.
K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 and
other decisions and came to hold that
keeping in view the concept of fair trial,
the obligation of the prosecution, the
interest of the community and the duty of
the court, it can irrefragably be stated
that the court cannot be a silent
spectator or a mute observer when it
presides over a trial. It is the duty of the
court to see that neither the prosecution
nor the accused play truancy with the
criminal trial or corrode the sanctity of
the proceeding. They cannot expropriate
or hijack the community interest by
conducting themselves in such a manner
as a consequence of which the trial
becomes a farcical one. It has been
further stated that the law does not
countenance a "mock trial". It is a
1 All. Rohit & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
141
serious
concern
of
society.
Every
member of the collective has an inherent
interest in such a trial. No one can be
allowed to create a dent in the same. The
court is duty-bound to see that neither
the prosecution nor the defence takes
unnecessary adjournments and take the
trial under their control. We may note
with profit though the context was
different, yet the message is writ large.
The message is ? all kinds of individual
notions of fair trial have no room"."

"38. At this juncture, we think it
apt to state that the exercise of power
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be sought
to be invoked either by the prosecution or
by the accused persons or by the Court
itself. The High Court has been moved by
the ground that the accused persons are
in the custody and the concept of speedy
trial is not nullified and no prejudice is
caused, and, therefore, the principle of
magnanimity should apply. Suffice it to
say, a criminal trial does not singularly
centres around the accused. In it there is
involvement of the prosecution, the
victim and the victim represents the
collective. The cry of the collective may
not be uttered in decibels which is
physically audible in the court premises,
but the Court has to remain sensitive to
such silent cries and the agonies, for the
society seeks justice. Therefore, a balance
has to be struck. We have already
explained
the
use
of
the
words
"magnanimous approach" and how it
should be understood. Regard being had
to the concept of balance, and weighing
the factual score on the scale of balance,
we are of the convinced opinion that the
High Court has fallen into absolute error
in axing the order passed by the learned
trial Judge. If we allow ourselves to say,
when the concept of fair trial is limitlessly
stretched, having no boundaries, the
orders like the present one may fall in the
arena of sanctuary of errOrs. Hence, we
reiterate the necessity of doctrine of
balance"."

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mohd. Khalid v. State of West
Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334 has made a
serious observation about adjournment of
the case for cross-examination by the
defence. In Para 54, it has been held that:-

''Before parting with the case,
we may point out that the Designated
Court deferred the cross-examination of
the witnesses for a long time. That is a
feature which is being noticed in many
cases. Unnecessary adjournments give a
scope for a grievance that the accused
persons get a time to get over the
witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this
allegation, the fact remains that such
adjournments lack the spirit of Section
309 of the Code. When a witness is
available and his examination-in-chief is
over, unless compelling reasons arc there,
the Trial Court should not adjourn the
matter on the mere asking. These aspects
were highlighted by this Court in State of
U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others
(2001) 4 SCC 667 and N.G. Dastane v.
Shrikant Shivde (2001) 6 SCC 135. In the
case of State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath
Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667, this
Court deprecated the practice of Courts
adjourning cases without examination of
witnesses when they are in attendance
with the following observations:-

''9. We make it abundantly clear
that if a witness is present in Court he
must be examined on that day. The Court
must know that most of the witnesses
could attend the Court only at heavy cost
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to them, after keeping aside their own
avocation. Certainly they incur suffering
and loss of income. The meagre amount of
bhatta (allowance) which a witness may
be paid by the Court is generally a poor
solace for the financial loss incurred by
him. It is a said plight in the Trial Courts
that witnesses who are called through
summons or other processes stand at a
doorstep from morning till evening only to
be told at the end of the day that the case
is adjourned to another day. This
primitive practice must be reformed by
every one provided the presiding officer
concerned has a commitment towards
duty. No sadistic pleasure, in seeing how
other persons summoned by him as
witnesses are standard on account of the
dimension of his judicial powers, can be a
persuading factor for granting such
adjournments lavishly, that too in a
casual manner.''

12. Keeping in view the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I may record that
on the pretext of alleged failure of justice the
applicants-accused cannot be permitted to
adopt tactics to win over the witnesses by
hook or by crook and ultimately when they
succeeded in their evil design to win over the
son of PW-1 who had supported the
prosecution version on 4.10.2018 and then
an application was moved with a mala fide
intention
and
probably
the
accusedapplicants had also won over PW-1, Mange
Ram. It is not a case where no opportunity
was afforded to the accused to cross-examine
the witnesses but the accused-applicants
facing trial in a heinous broad day light
double murder case have not come up with
clean hands and, thus, the court below by a
detailed and reasoned order was perfectly
justified in rejecting the recall application
moved by the applicants for recalling PW-1
after more than eight months.

13. In the present facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court while
exercising its inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. cannot be oblivious of the fact
that the accused cannot be permitted to delay
the trial and keep on getting the case
adjourned and ultimately they succeed in
their goal in winning over the witnesses. I
may further record that even PW-2, Manjeet
in his cross-examination has not denied the
time, place and date of incident and he has
only gone to the extent of stating that he had
seen the accused from the back and not from
the faces and the names of the applicants
were disclosed by his father. How much
reliance can be placed on the testimony of
PW-2 is a matter of appreciation of his
evidence by the trial court.

14. The applicants-accused themselves
are responsible for leaving the trial judge
with no option but to close the crossexamination as sufficient opportunity was
afforded to them and the very fact of moving
the recall application after more than eight
months without it being challenged in any
forum till 3.6.2019 speaks volumes of
malafides of the applicants and the court
cannot permit to recall PW-1 at this stage so
that the possibility of his being also won over
by the applicants cannot be ruled out. It is a
double murder case and cannot be said to be
a private dispute between the parties since it
affects the society at large and affects the law
and public order, such kind of practices
cannot be allowed to permeate and permit
the accused/applicants to take advantage of
their own wrong. Their conduct was not such
which may attract the discretionary power of
the Court u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-1,
Mange Ram for cross-examination.

15. In the light of aforesaid, I do not
find any merit in the present application
and the trial court has rightly exercised
1 All. Keshav Narayan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
143
the discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
and
the
present
application
stands,
accordingly, dismissed.

16. However, the trial court is
directed to expedite the aforesaid session
trial and conclude the same in accordance
with law without granting unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties as
expeditiously
as
possible
preferably
within a period of nine months from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order, if there is no legal impediment.

17.

Office
is
directed
to
communicate the order to the court
concerned within a week.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4042 of 2004
(u/s -482 Cr. P.C.)

Keshav Narayan &Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P &Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, Sri Manish
Tiwary

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Dr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Sri
Rajnish Rai, Sri Vivek Singh.

A.
Section
3
of
Railway
Property
(Unlawful
Possession)
Act,
1966-
Railway
property
recovered
-
said
property was lying at the petrol pump
when the applicant was manager-prima
facie
case
against
the
applicantproceedings cannot be quashed because
report submitted by a police officer when
he
has
no
power
to
investigate-
application dismissed. (Para 6)

Offence under the Railway Property (Unlawful
Possession) Act, 1966- are non-cognizable-
Section 5- enquiry and complaint can be filed
but Enquiry officer cannot approach Magistrate
to inform about the proceedings-

B. The matter under enquiry and letter
submitted
before
the
Magistrate
is
neither a report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. nor a formal complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. A letter addressing
the magistrate does not imply that the
procedure contemplated in law will not
be followed. Such report in a noncognizable
offence
in
view
to
Explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.,
such report can be deemed to be a
complaint and Magistrate can proceed
accordingly.
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Chronological list of Case Cited: -

1. AIR (2001) Supreme Court 429 State of
Bihar Vs. Chandra Bhushan Singh and Others

2. AIR 1981 SC 379 Balkrishn A. Devidayal,
etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra

3. AIR (2002) SC 64 State of Bihar Vs.
Baidnath Prasad @ Baidyanath Shah ans
Another

4. (1999) CRI. L.J. 1075 (Ald) Ishwar Saran
Shukla ans Another Vs. State of U.P.

5. Cr.P.CAIR (1996) SC 1619 Common Cause, a
Registered Society Vs. Union of India (E-10)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Manish
Tiwary, learned counsel for applicants; and,
Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, Advocate for
complainant and Sri Syed Ali Murtaza,
learned AGA for State of U.P.