Siyaram Agrahari v. Cbi Acb Lko
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 13 Aug 2025
- Bench
- SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
- Neutral citation
- 2025:AHC-LKO:47326
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of by
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of by observing that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to cross examine the witness Ram Deo on the next date fixed and no further adjournment shall be granted to him for this purpose. . Order Date…
Judgment
Heard Sri Asim Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the records.
By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 15.07.2025, passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act C.B.I. Court No.4, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.10 of 2010, arising out of FIR No.RC0062008A0015/2008, under Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C. Section 13(1)(d) P.C. Act and Section 65(1) read with Section 43(1) information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow whereby the trial court has allowed an application filed by the respondent-CBI under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning a witness for proving a certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act and another application for taking on record the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act.
It is recorded in the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 that the trial court had on its own directed production of a certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act and it is necessary that the person who has issued the certificate be examined in the court. The trial court directed production of certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act and has summoned the person who had prepared the certificate for being examined as a witness.
After advancing his submissions at some length, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he does not want to press the instant application and he limits his submission to the prayer that he may be granted liberty to cross-examine the witness Ram Deo, summoned by the order dated 15.07.2025.
The learned counsel for the respondent-C.B.I. has stated that the applicant was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness but he declined to avail the same.
A perusal of records indicate that the witness Ram Deo has been examined and when the applicant was given opportunity to cross examine him he stated that he has challenged the order summoning this witness before this court.
Operative part
Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of by observing that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to cross examine the witness Ram Deo on the next date fixed and no further adjournment shall be granted to him for this purpose. . Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Ram. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of by
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 311, 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(1)(d); Indian Penal Code, 1860; Technology Amendment Act, 2008; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 65B.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 13 Aug 2025. The bench was SUBHASH VIDYARTHI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.