Ram Bharat vs State of U.P.

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This criminal revision is directed against order dated 10th November, 2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Budaun in S.T. No. 98 of 2007, State v. Somveer, under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C., P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun whereby application 55 Kha filed on behalf of the revisionist Ram Bharat was rejected.

The application 55 Kha was moved on behalf of the revisionist Ram Bharat on the ground that few relevant facts are not on record and, therefore, he (Ram Bharat) and other witnesses be recalled for reexamination.

The application was opposed by public prosecutor on the ground that all the witnesses of fact have been examined and thoroughly cross-examined and there was no ground to recall the witnesses and the accused was also detained in jail and, therefore, no good ground for recalling the witnesses was made out.

The said order has been challenged by P.W. 2 Ram Bharat by means of present revision.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge committed illegality in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the revisionist.

The revisionist is neither the complainant nor any relative of the deceased and he cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. The revisionist is simply a witness, who was examined on behalf of the prosecution. He had no locus standi to move an application before the trial court for recalling the witnesses for re-examination. Even when this Court asked learned Counsel for the revisionist to show what interest the revisionist had in the case, no satisfactory answer is forthcoming. In view of Section 225, Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial in a sessions trial is to be conducted by a public prosecutor. No other person can be permitted to hijack the trial. If the revisionist had any grievance, he should have apprised the public prosecutor about it and the public prosecutor should have taken appropriate steps.

The revisionist has no interest in the matter. He appears to be acting on the instructions of some unknown person. Such a course of action cannot be permitted by the Court.

The revision is dismissed as misconceived and ill-advised.