- (1.) V. K. Chaturvedi, J. Aggrieved by order dated 3-4-2001 passed by Vlth Addl. District Judge, Varanasi in S. T No. 183 of 1997, State of UP. v. Subedar Singh and others, dismissing the application of the revisionist under Section 311 Cr. P. C. to summon Lal Bahadur Chauhan, this revision has been preferred.
(2.) HEARD Sri K. D. Tiwari, holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri S. T. Siddqui, learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned A. G. A. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that Lal Bahadur Chauhan, who is an injured as well as a material witness of the incident has not been produced" before the trial Court. An application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. has been movefl by the revisionist to summon Lal Bahadur Chauhan and that application has been rejected by the trial Court on 3-4-2001. Sri S. T Siddqui, learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the revisionist along with Subedar and others, who are facing trial in the sessions trial mentioned, has moved an application No. 39 Kha under Section 311 Cr. P. C. on behalf of all the accused persons to sum mon Lal Bahadur Chauhan, who has been named in as a witness in the charge-sheet and that application was rejected by order dated 3-4-2001. Against that order, co ac cused Subedar Singh has filed Petition No. 1836 of 2001 under Section 482 Cr. P. C. before this Court and on that application, the following orders have been passed:- "heard Sri R. K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. T Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the informant. The materials eye witness was not produced by the prosecution for cross-examination and feeling aggrieved there by, the applicant facing charges under Section 302 I. P. C. and other alleged offences, has ap proached this Court by filing the present ap plication seeking Court's intervention. It is set tled principle of law that the prosecution cannot be compelled by the Court to examine any par ticular witness and if that witness is gained over and will not support the prosecution version. It is the duty of the prosecution to decide what witnesses it should be examined. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Hukum Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) (1) J. I. C 213 supports my view. The Criminal Miscellaneous. Application fals and the same is accordingly dismissed. "
(3.) AFTER hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the par ties, perusing the impugned order dated 3-4-2001 and also taking into considera tion the fact that a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. filed by the co-accused has already been dismissed by this Court, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or incor rectness in the impugned order. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. .;