High Court · 2025

2-The instant application U/s 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to quash the orders dated 04.03.2025 and 05.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 2, Varanasi in SST No. 17 of 2008 (State vs. Deepak Chaurasia and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 171 of 2003, under Section 166, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7/13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi. 3-It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on 07.05.2003, Inspector Anti Corruption Organization, Varanasi got a first information report lodged against the applicant Deepak Kumar Chaurasia, Ram Lal Vishwakarma and other members of executive committee of Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi for the offence under Sections 218, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, making allegation inter-alia that the applicant, who at that time was posted as one of the member of Sub Executive Committee, Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi made wrong annual assessment fixing Rs. 70,125/- in place of Rs. 2,33,544/- and passed an order dated 24.07.1993 of lesser valuation of House No. 5- 14/84 G in order to extend undue benefit to its owner Ashok Kumar Singh, on which an enquiry was made by the vigilance department, in which allegation against the accused persons were found correct. After culmination of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted on 27.10.2007 and charges were framed against the applicant on 26.02.2016. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C of the applicant was recorded on 04.01.2025 and further date was fixed for 18.01.2025 for defence evidence, but no defence evidence was given on 18.01.2025. Thereafter, another date was fixed for 24.01.2025 but on that date also, no defence evidence was produced, therefore, last opportunity was provided to him to produce the defence evidence fixing 31.01.2025 but on that date also, adjournment application was moved by the revisionist, hence, next date was fixed for 12.02.2025. On 12.02.2025, a written statement was filed on behalf of the applicant and further date was fixed for 24.02.2025. On 24.02.2025, an application was moved for summoning the defence witness namely Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Director, Singh Medical and Research Centre, Maldahiya, Varansi which was allowed on the same day i.e. on 24.02.2025 fixing 04.03.2025 but on the next date, applicant again moved an adjournment application, which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 04.03.2025 observing that despite sufÏcient time given to him, no defence witness was produced. It is also observed that the matter is 22 years old. Accordingly, the opportunity of producing defence witness was closed. Thereafter, on 05.03.2025, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the applicant, which was rejected vide order dated 05.03.2025 on the ground of adopting delaying tactics by the accused-applicant. 4-Learned counsel for the applicant, fairly admits that it was the fault of the applicant for not producing the defence witness in time despite sufÏcient opportunity was granted to him by the trial court. He further submits that now Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh is ready to get his statement recorded before the trial Court. It is also pointed out the though 05.03.2025 was the date fixed for final argument but the same could not be done because the trial Court was lying vacant. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in case one last opportunity for producing Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh is given to the applicant, substantial justice will be done with him because the F.I.R. was lodged with regard to the valuation of house of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, however, the prosecution has neither made him as witness of charge-sheet nor produced him as prosecution witness before the trial court and no reason has been given for not producing the said material witness before the trial court. He further undertakes on behalf of the applicant that he will not seek any further adjournment in the matter. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant by contending that sufÏcient opportunities have already been given to the applicant to produce defence witness, hence, there is no illegality in the impugned orders. 6-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I do not find any error in the impugned orders, however, there is a duty cast upon the Court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of such means is to allow the accused to produce those witness, who have not been produced by the prosecution, hence, in order to ensure the fair trial and justice this Court feels that the prayer of the applicant is liable to be accepted. 7-Accordingly, following directions are issued:- (i) Applicant shall file certified copy of this order within a week before the trial Court. On presentation of order of this Court, the trial court shall fix a specific date for producing defence witness by the applicant, in case final argument has not yet been done. (ii) On the date so fixed, applicant shall produce Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh before the trial court for recording his evidence. (iii) In case the applicant fails to comply the aforesaid directions, no further opportunity to the applicant shall be given. (iv) Thereafter the trial court shall proceed further and make an endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. (v) The applicant shall not move any adjournment application before the trial court. 8-With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2-The instant application U/s 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to quash the orders dated 04.03.2025 and 05.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 2, Varanasi in SST No. 17 of 2008 (State vs. Deepak Chaurasia and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 171 of 2003, under Section 166, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7/13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi. 3-It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on 07.05.2003, Inspector Anti Corruption Organization, Varanasi got a first information report lodged against the applicant Deepak Kumar Chaurasia, Ram Lal Vishwakarma and other members of executive committee of Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi for the offence under Sections 218, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, making allegation inter-alia that the applicant, who at that time was posted as one of the member of Sub Executive Committee, Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi made wrong annual assessment fixing Rs. 70,125/- in place of Rs. 2,33,544/- and passed an order dated 24.07.1993 of lesser valuation of House No. 5- 14/84 G in order to extend undue benefit to its owner Ashok Kumar Singh, on which an enquiry was made by the vigilance department, in which allegation against the accused persons were found correct. After culmination of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted on 27.10.2007 and charges were framed against the applicant on 26.02.2016. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C of the applicant was recorded on 04.01.2025 and further date was fixed for 18.01.2025 for defence evidence, but no defence evidence was given on 18.01.2025. Thereafter, another date was fixed for 24.01.2025 but on that date also, no defence evidence was produced, therefore, last opportunity was provided to him to produce the defence evidence fixing 31.01.2025 but on that date also, adjournment application was moved by the revisionist, hence, next date was fixed for 12.02.2025. On 12.02.2025, a written statement was filed on behalf of the applicant and further date was fixed for 24.02.2025. On 24.02.2025, an application was moved for summoning the defence witness namely Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Director, Singh Medical and Research Centre, Maldahiya, Varansi which was allowed on the same day i.e. on 24.02.2025 fixing 04.03.2025 but on the next date, applicant again moved an adjournment application, which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 04.03.2025 observing that despite sufÏcient time given to him, no defence witness was produced. It is also observed that the matter is 22 years old. Accordingly, the opportunity of producing defence witness was closed. Thereafter, on 05.03.2025, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the applicant, which was rejected vide order dated 05.03.2025 on the ground of adopting delaying tactics by the accused-applicant. 4-Learned counsel for the applicant, fairly admits that it was the fault of the applicant for not producing the defence witness in time despite sufÏcient opportunity was granted to him by the trial court. He further submits that now Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh is ready to get his statement recorded before the trial Court. It is also pointed out the though 05.03.2025 was the date fixed for final argument but the same could not be done because the trial Court was lying vacant. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in case one last opportunity for producing Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh is given to the applicant, substantial justice will be done with him because the F.I.R. was lodged with regard to the valuation of house of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, however, the prosecution has neither made him as witness of charge-sheet nor produced him as prosecution witness before the trial court and no reason has been given for not producing the said material witness before the trial court. He further undertakes on behalf of the applicant that he will not seek any further adjournment in the matter. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant by contending that sufÏcient opportunities have already been given to the applicant to produce defence witness, hence, there is no illegality in the impugned orders. 6-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I do not find any error in the impugned orders, however, there is a duty cast upon the Court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of such means is to allow the accused to produce those witness, who have not been produced by the prosecution, hence, in order to ensure the fair trial and justice this Court feels that the prayer of the applicant is liable to be accepted. 7-Accordingly, following directions are issued:- (i) Applicant shall file certified copy of this order within a week before the trial Court. On presentation of order of this Court, the trial court shall fix a specific date for producing defence witness by the applicant, in case final argument has not yet been done. (ii) On the date so fixed, applicant shall produce Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh before the trial court for recording his evidence. (iii) In case the applicant fails to comply the aforesaid directions, no further opportunity to the applicant shall be given. (iv) Thereafter the trial court shall proceed further and make an endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. (v) The applicant shall not move any adjournment application before the trial court. 8-With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad