The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionist on the ground that P.W.-1 has to be cross examined on some important points. What were the questions, which had to be asked from P.W.-1 in further cross examination were not mentioned in the application nor important points, which required cross examination were mentioned. Earlier, the revisionist had already availed the opportunity of cross examination. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was vague and was rightly rejected by learned Sessions Judge.
I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.
Allahabad High Court
Anurag Srivastava vs State Of U.P. & Another on 6 October, 2010
Author: S.C. Agarwal
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
No notice is issued to private opposite party in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private opposite party to apply for variation or modification of this order if he feels so aggrieved.
This revision is directed against the order dated 3.8.2010 passed by Special Judge E.C. Act, Etawah in special case no. 3 of 2008, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist accused Anurag Srivastava was rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that earlier P.W.-1 had been cross-examined in the year 2009 but cross examination could not be done on certain points due to inadvertence. The contention is that the learned trial court committed illegality in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionist on the ground that P.W.-1 has to be cross examined on some important points. What were the questions, which had to be asked from P.W.-1 in further cross examination were not mentioned in the application nor important points, which required cross examination were mentioned. Earlier, the revisionist had already availed the opportunity of cross examination. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was vague and was rightly rejected by learned Sessions Judge.
I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.
The revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.10.2010 KU
No comments:
Post a Comment