AMAR SARAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri R.N. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
(2.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr. P.C has been filed against the order dated 9 -9 -2002 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 1, Mirzapur in S.T. No. 259 of 1990 whereby the learned Judge has declined to summon the witnesses namely Rajnish Bhushan, P.W. 1, Sabhajeet Singh, P.W. 2 and Sanjay Kumar Singh, P.W. 3 for further cross -examination by the defence and for a direction to the trial Court to summon those witnesses. The order dated 9 -9 -2002 has been challenged on the following grounds: (1) That as the cross case filed by the applicants being S.T. No. 47 of 1992 has not been brought before the same Fast Track Court where S.T. No. 259 of 1990 was pending against the applicants and on the dates when these three witnesses were examined i.e. 4 -9 -2001, 22 -9 -2001, the case had not been committed to this Fast Track Court, but it reached the said Court on 6 -11 -2001 and accordingly the applicants were deprived of opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses with respect of the matter which arose in the cross case. (2) There were eight accused persons and three of them were represented by Shri Mohd Aqil, Advocate, who was 81 years in age and he could not reach the first floor where the case was being conducted for cross -examination of three witnesses. (3) The Court has allowed the prayer of the prosecution for recalling the investigating officer by the order dated 2 -9 -2003 and the Court has acted in discriminatory manner in disallowing the prayer as the applicants wanted to re -examine the witnesses. (4) In the rejoinder affidavit it was pointed out that Rajnish Bhushan, who filed counter affidavit is not an injured person nor was he an aggrieved person and he was not empowered to file any counter affidavit in this case as he has no locus standi in the matter.
(3.) I think the Court below has committed no illegality in rejecting the prayer for recalling the aforementioned witnesses by holding that the application has been made for delaying the proceedings as the matter is of 1985 and sessions trial is pending since 1990. Simply because the trials, being S.T. No. 47 of 1992 in which the applicants and others are complainant and S.T. No. 259 of 1990 in which the applicants are accused, were not pending in the same Court although both had been committed on that date would not in any way deter the applicants from cross -examining the witnesses about some of the materials mentioned in S.T. No. 47 of 1992. Hence only because the cross -case had now reached the same Court could provide no ground to recall the witnesses. It was mentioned in the impugned order that specific questions in respect of the cross -case had been asked from the witnesses at page 7 in the case of Rajnish, P.W. 1, at page 8 in the case of Sabhajeet, P.W. 2 and at page 8 in the case of Sanjay Kumar, P.W. 3.;