Harsh Kumar, J. - (1.) The appeal has been filed under section 14-A(1) of S.C./S.T. Act against judgment and order dated 30.5.2018 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No.344 of 2007, Case Crime No.443 of 2006, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC and 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned trial court vide impugned orders dated 30.5.2018 rejected application dated 27.4.2018 under section 311 Cr.P.C. of accused-appellant, subsequently recalled above order passed on application dated 27.4.2018 and then rejected his application dated 1.5.2018, which orders are wrong and incorrect; that in the murder trial, Kamal Kishore Bajpayee, the father of deceased was examined as P.W.14 and Dinesh Kumar Bajpayee and Safar Ali, who are not witnesses of charge sheet were not produced by the prosecution; that for these reasons, the accused-appellant moved an application on 27.4.2018 for summoning P.W.13 Kamal Kishore Bajpayee as well as Dinesh Kumar Bajpayee and Safar Ali, which application was partly allowed by learned trial court on 30.5.2018, rejecting the same for summoning Kamal Kishore Bajpayee and allowing to summon Dinesh Kumar Bajpayee and Safar Ali, as defence witnesses, but later on when it was brought to the notice of the Court that learned counsel for the accused had made an endorsement of "Not press" on the application, the learned trial court recalled its order dated 30.5.2018 passed on application dated 27.4.2018 and, thereafter, disposed of the application dated 1.5.2018 by impugned separate order; that the order on application dated 1.5.2018 has been passed by the Trial Judge with prejudiced mind due rejection of earlier application dated 27.4.2018, without due application of mind; that the cross examination with P.W.14 Kamal Kishore Bajpayee has not completed and since in application dated 27.4.2018, he was wrongly mentioned as P.W.13 in place of P.W.14 so another application was moved by Not pressing the application dated 27.4.2018; that the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to recall it's order dated 30.5.2018 passed on application dated 27.4.2018; that since earlier Advocates of accused-appellant did not cross examine P.W.14 on certain important and relevant points, so after engaging Sri Virendra Kumar Agnihotri and Sri Anil Sisodia, Advocates accused-applicant moved an application that P.W.14 is required to be summoned for further cross examination at the expenses of accused-appellant; that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is necessary in the interest of justice to direct the trial court to summon P.W.14 for further cross examination by newly appointed counsel of accused-appellant.;