KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,J. - (1.) This application under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 2.8.2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Mau in S.T. No. 227 of 2003, State v. Rajendra Yadav and others , arising out of Case Crime No. 504 of 2003, under Sections 147, 149, 504 and 302 IPC, P.S. Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau, whereby the application of the applicants regarding summoning of defence witnesses has been rejected.
(2.) Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the witnesses who ought to have been produced in defence, have not been produced because the applicants were given wrong advice by the then counsel who was conducting the case and that is why those witnesses could not accordingly be produced. Learned counsel for the applicants during the course of arguments has tried to show that those witnesses who are now being sought to be produced in the court below, are not irrelevant witnesses. Their production in court will help to decide the issue involved in the case and to prove the innocence of the accused. Learned counsel for the applicants has tried to submit that there is no stage fixed to exercise the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 and this power can be invoked and exercised at any stage till the pronouncement of the judgement. Counsel in this regard has placed his reliance upon the two judgements one passed by the Apex Court in the case of Natasha Singh v. C.B.I., 2013 (82) ACC 387 and another passed by this Court in the case of Barnali Baishya v. State of U.P. and another, 2017(98) ACC 555.
(3.) Heard learned AGA representing the State and perused the record.;