AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Mateen, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri H.A. Alvi.
Present petition has been filed by the petitioners having aggrieved against an order dated 842004 passed by learned Special Judge Gangsters Act, Faizabad in Gangster Case No. 55 of 2001 arising out of Criminal Case No. 1358 of 2000 under Sections 302/323/506 IPC read with Section 7 and 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
By means of the impugned order Court below had summoned one Babu Ram S/o Tilak Ram on an application moved by the prosecution. In the statement of one of the witnesses it was mentioned that Babu Ram was also present at the time of occurrence and he is an eye witness.
The Court below under the garb and powers vested in it under Section 311 Cr. P.C. thus came to the conclusion that no doubt name of Babu Ram does not find place in the FIR nor his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded by the investigating agency but since his name finds place in the statement of the prosecution witness and since he had clearly stated that Babu Ram was also present at the time of occurrence and he is an eye witness as such the Court in its wisdom for just and equitable conclusion of the trial was satisfied that the evidence of Babu Ram is necessary and accordingly summoned him by means of impugned order dated 842004.
While going through the same, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the same.
This petition thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.