- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the A. G. A.
(2.) THE applicant/revisionist is an ac cused in S. T. No. 527 of 1995, State v. Nayeem, under Sections 394 and 302, I. P. C. , pending in the Court of III Addi tional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. THE applicant moved an application No. 129-Kha to call the witnesses in defence. That application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 13-4-2000. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred. In this case co-accused Mukesh moved an application to summon certain witnesses under Section 311, Cr. P. C. His application was rejected and against that order he preferred Criminal Revision No. 2421 of 1999. That revision was also dis missed by the High Court on 23-12-99. However, it was observed that the accused could summon the witnesses in defence. Accused Nayeem, thereafter moved ap plication to call the witnesses in defence. That application was again rejected by the impugned order. Ave perused the order. The trial is very old. The perusal of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that the defence evidence has already been closed and the case is fixed for arguments. Several dates hAve already been fixed, but the accused are seeking adjournments on one ground or the other. That the sole intention of the applicant is to delay the disposal of the trial.
(3.) IT may also be mentioned that the copy of the application 129-Kha has also been filed by the applicant. The perusal of the application shows that no reason has been mentioned as to why the witnesses are required to be examiend in defence and how their statements are necessary. There fore, it appears that the sole purpose is to delay the disposal of the session trial. O nOt find any grOund tO inter fere in the Order. The revisiOn is dismissed summarily. RevisiOn dismissed. .;