Daya Shankar Agnihotri @ Kallu v. State of U.P

Court No. - 81 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7151 of 2023 Petitioner :- Daya Shankar Agnihotri @ Kallu Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Kant Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶1Heard Sri Vidya Kant Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶2The relevant facts are as below.

¶3The accused Daya Shankar Agnihotri, who is the petitioner herein, is facing trial in Session Case No. 909 of 2020 under section 307 I.P.C. and Session Case No. 117 of 2020 under section 3/25 Arms Act, since about last three year.

¶4He moved applications on 24.05.2023 and 25.05.2023 in the sessions trial noted above, respectively, with the prayer that the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with, therefore, it is difficult for him to get justice and that he may be provided with a copy of charge sheet and other prosecution papers. The learned Sessions Judge decided both the applications by a single order dated 07.06.2023 whereby he dismissed the applications and posted the case for recording of statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. Now, the accused is before this Court challenging the aforesaid order.

¶5The submission of the petitioner is that, that the compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and that prosecution is bound to provide copies of prosecution papers, before the trial court proceeding begins. To support his arguments, my attention has been drawn to the copies of the order sheets drawn by the court concerned. On the basis of the order sheet dated

07.10.2020 drawn in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2022, (Crime No. 865 of 2020 under section 307 I.P.C.) and order sheet dated 22.12.2021 drawn in Sessions Trial No. 3397 of 2020, (Crime No. 865 of 2020 under section 3/25 of Arms Act), it is argued that though both the order sheets mention that the copies of the papers have been provided to the defence side, however, there is no acknowledgement/endorsement of receiving the same.

¶6A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of the relevant order sheets, drew an inference that in fact, provisions of section 207 were duly complied with and that the applications have been moved without any substance and rejected them. The learned trial court in para-18 of the order made certain observations as below: "18-

धधरध207

दद०प०सद०ममअभभययकककपयललसररपकररवअनयदसतधववजजककपभतललभपदवनवकवसदबदधमम

पधवधधनउपबननधतहह।पयललसररपकररकवआधधरपरसनससतमधमलवममअभभययकककउकदसतधववजजकक

पभतललभपभदलधएदजधनवकवपपछवउदवशयउसवअभभयकजनपककवमधमलवककसमझनव,

उसकधखणडनकरनवएवद

अपनपपभतरकधपसतयतकरनवकधअवसरपदधनकरनधहह।दधनणडकभवलधशधसकधसयससधभपतलसदधनतहहभक

अभभययकककअपनवमधमलवककपभतरकधकधपपररएवदसमयभचतअवसरभमलनधचधभहए।यहतभपसदभवहहजब

अभभययकककउनसभपदसतधववजजककपभतललभपयधदउसआरदभभकसतरपरहपउपलबधकरधदपजधएलजसपर

अभभयकजनपकभनभर करतधहह।यभदअभभयकजनमधमलवसवसमबननधतदसतधववजउपलबधनकरधईगईहक, तक अभभययक,

अभभयकजनपककवमधमलवककनसमझसकतधहहऔरनहपअपनपपभतरकधकरनवममसमसरहकसकतध

हह।पसतयतपकररजममअभभययकककओरसवउसकवततसमयभवदधनअलधवकधगरदधरधअभभयकजनसधकपगरकक

भवसतधरसवककगयपपभतपरपकधअभभययकककदद०प०सद०ककधधरध207

कवअनयपधलनममपकररसवसमबननधत

अभभयकजनअभभलवखजककपभतययपदतभकयवजधनवकवपररलभकतकरतधहहकयजभकअभभयकजनअभभलवखजकव

भबनधअभभययककवभवदधनअलधवकधगरदधरधअभभयकजनमधमलवककसमझतवहहएसधकपगरककपभतपरपकधभकयध

जधनधऔरअभभययककवबचधवहवतयसयझधवकवपशनपपछधजधनधसमभवनहहसध।अभभययककवभवदधनअलधवकध

दधरधअवलदबललएगएभवलधवयवससधमममधननपयनयधयधलयकवसदपवकरसवअसहमतहकनवकधपशनहपनहहहह,

परनतयउकभवलधवयवससधएदपसतयतपकररकवतथयऔरपररनससभतयजसवभभनहकनवकवकधररलधगपनहहहकतप हह।"

¶7Definitely, there is a certain purpose behind incorporating provisions of section 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C. There is no reason to doubt that in fact, the copies were provided to the applicant as mentioned in the relevant order sheets by the court. There is no legal requirement that accused should write on the margin of order sheet acknowledging that he, in fact, received the copies. Such practice is adopted as matter of caution and not as a matter of law. It may be noted that relevant order sheet bears his signatures. In my view, have the things been otherwise, there was no reason for the accused person to keep mum for all the three years while the prosecution kept on producing all the witnesses and the accused cross examined them.

¶8In my view the petition has no substance and has been moved just to buy time for the purpose of delaying the trial court proceeding. In the circumstances noted above, I find it fit to dismiss this petition and impose a cost upon the petitioner so that practice of filing casual and superfluous petition is discouraged.

¶9The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

¶10The petitioner is directed to deposit this cost within a period of 15 days from today, with the Registry of this Court. In case of failure to do so, the Registry shall issue a recovery certificate to District Magistrate concerned, who shall take steps for recovery of the same, as arrears of land revenue. When the amount is deposited or recovered, the same shall be transferred in favour of the State.

¶11A copy of the order be immediately notified to the court concerned. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Sumit Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad