Patna High CourtCR. REV./569/2017rejected

Sunil Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-05-18Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.569 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Sunil Yadav, son of Late Baijju Yadav,

2. Gaurav Kumar, son of Sunil Yadav, Both resident of Tulshi Mandi, P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna.

3. Ratan Gope, son of Jagdish Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Chit toli, P.S.- Chowk, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Digamber Kr. Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-05-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 26.04.2017, passed, by learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Patna City, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 842 of 2013, arising out of Chowk Police Station Case No. 91 of 2012, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

I have perused the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that with similar prayer, the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.569 of 2017 (2) dt.18-05-2017 2/3 petitioner had earlier filed an application, under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Sections 76 and 77 of the Evidence Act, to call upon the informant and his lawyer and Additional Public Prosecutor to admit or deny the genuineness of the certified copies of the judgment of Sessions Trial No. 888 of 2001, First Information Report thereof, bearing Alamganj Police Station Case No. 131 of 2000 and order sheets of Sessions Trial No. 848 of 2012 from 15.03.2012 to 08.03.2013, for marking them as exhibits in the said case.

The said application was rejected by the order, dated 15.04.2017. The petitioner did not challenge the said order, dated 15.04.2047, and with same prayer, he filed another application on 20.04.2017, for marking the certified copies of the said documents as exhibits. Learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Patna City, Patna, by the impugned order, dated 26.04.2017, rejected the application on the ground that he could not reconsider the prayer for marking the said documents as exhibits, which was earlier rejected.

Since, the order, dated 15.04.2017, was not assailed, learned Court below rightly rejected the petitioner's subsequent application, dated 20.04.2017, for the same purpose.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.569 of 2017 (2) dt.18-05-2017 3/3 I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √