MOH SARFARAZ Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to respondents no. 2 to 7, as the same is not required while taking into consideration the impugned judgment.
(2.) Having heard the controversy and after going through the order dated 18.08.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, it appears that there are three sessions trial bearing nos. 233 of 2009, 234 of 2009 and 235 of 2009. Previous two sessions trial were pertaining to an incident of dated 21.04.2009 allegedly committed by one set of accused persons and accused Sher Mohd. @ Jameel Ahmad in Sessions Trial No. 233 of 2009. Chargesheets were submitted separately for certain reasons. Sessions Trial No. 235 of 2009 pertaining to recovery of a country made pistol and two cartridges from accused Zakir @ Arjun, who was also accused in Sessions Trial No. 234 of 2009. A separate chargesheet was submitted for this offence under Section 25 Arms Act because the same was generated out of the recovery of a country made pistol on 25.06.2009 but the fact remains that all these accused persons were involved in the same crime. Charges against accused persons were levelled in all the three Sessions Trials on 03.08.2010 by the same Judge and all the three files, for all practical purposes, were consolidated on 26.08.2010, as is adverted from the order dated 01.12.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge. Evidence was recorded in leading case i.e. Sessions Trial No. 234 of 2009. Papers annexed with this revision show that learned Sessions Judge has heard the arguments finally and fixed the date 19.05.2012 for delivery of judgment but on the application moved by accused persons on 19.05.2012 itself, deferred the pronouncement of judgment and passed the impugned order.
(3.) Having gone through the questioned order dated 18.08.2012, this Court feels that there was no propriety to adjourn the delivery of judgment just on the fickle reasons. Virtually, all the files were consolidated de facto on 26.08.2010. More so, all the accused persons had got sufficient opportunity to examine every prosecution witness on each charge levelled against them. It was simply a technical flaw that specific order had not been passed but the same has been removed vide order dated 04.01.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur. So there was no justification for calling all the prosecution witnesses again. This Revision is allowed.
Impugned order dated 18.08.2012 is overturned and the court below is directed to treat all the sessions trial clubbed together and after considering and appreciating the prosecution evidence, deliver one single judgment for all the above sessions trials. He may call both the parties to submit further arguments in order to appreciate the evidence.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.