Prabodh Chandra Rastogi (Durg Inspector) and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Page No.1 of 11 Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8790 of 2024 Applicant :- Prabodh Chandra Rastogi (Drug Inspector) And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mool Chandra,Sanjay Kumar Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶1Shri Bipin Kumar Rai, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party no.2 and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

¶3The present application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed by the applicants, namely, Prabodh Chandra Rastogi and Manoj Singh seeking the following main relief (s) :- "The humble petitioners named above most respectfully submit that for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya (Annexure No.1) in case No.12332/2020 (State Vs. Prabodh Chandra Rastogi) pertaining to case crime No.421/2020 u/s 354, 354D, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad whereby the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants has been rejected and also for quashing the revisional court order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure No.2) passed by the court of Session Judge Faizabad in Criminal Revision No.181/2024 (Prabodh Chandra Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. ) and further it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly allow the Page No.2 of 11 application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. of the applicants for the re-examination of PW.1 (Complainant) and P.W.2 (Victim), in the interest of justice."

¶4The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya (in short, 'Magistrate') has passed the order dated 31.07.2024, under challenge, in Case No.12332/2020 (State Vs. Prabodh Chandra Rastogi), arising out of Case Crime No.421/2020, under Sections 354, 354D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad.

¶5Vide order dated 31.07.2024, the Magistrate rejected the application, preferred by the applicants under Section 311 Cr.P.C., on 03.04.2024, which was preferred for recalling the P.W.1, the informant/opposite party no.2-Ram Chandra Pal, and P.W.2/victim for further cross-examination.

¶6It would be apt to indicate that cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, after taking note of the specific allegations levelled in the FIR as also the other material/evidence on record, was concluded on 27.07.2022 and 12.04.2023, respectively.

¶7The Magistrate rejected the application after taking note of the fact that the witnesses, i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were duly cross-examined on various dates. The reasons recorded in the order dated 31.07.2024 are extracted hereinunder :- "सुना तथा प्ቔावली का अवलोकन किकया। प्ቔावली के अवलोकन से किवकित है किक प्ቔावली में माननीय उ्ሴ न्यायालय ्ቛारा ्ቚकरण के शी्ቈ किनस्तारण का आेश प्ቔावलिलत है। प्ቔावली में साቌኚय की काय'वाही के ौरान पी०डब्लू०-1 वाी मुकमा रमेश चन््ቖ पाल की मुख्य परी्ቌा किनांक 19.04.2022 को अंकिकत की गयी है तुपरान्त बचावप्ቌ ्ቛारा इस सा्ቌी से किनांक 19.04.2022,

23.05.2022 व 27.07.2022 को किवस्तृत जि7रह की गयी है। इसी ्ቚकार बचावप्ቌ ्ቛारा पी०डब्लू०-2 पीकि8ता सा्ቌी रूबी ओझा की मुख्य परी्ቌा किनांक

21.12.2023 व 11.01.2023 को अंकिकत की गयी है, तुपरान्त बचावप्ቌ ्ቛारा इस सा्ቌी से किनांक 11.01.2023, व 12.04.2023 को किवस्तृत जि7रह की गयी है। वत'मान ्ቚाथ'ना-प्ቔ में अभि=यु्ሹ / ्ቚाथ? ्ቛारा कोई किवभिश्ቖ तथ्य अंकिकत नहीं किकया गया है जि7सके लिलए जि7रह हेतु सा्ቌी को पुनः तलब किकया 7ाना Page No.3 of 11 आवश्यक हो। माननीय उ्ሴ न्यायालय ्ቛारा मामले के शी्ቈ किनस्तारण हेतु किनGश किया गया है। यह ्ቚाथ'ना-प्ቔ मामले की काय'वाही को किवलቚኌIबत किकये 7ाने के आशय से किया 7ाना परिरलቌኌ्ቌत होता है, त्቎ुसार बचावप्ቌ की ओर से ्ቚस्तुत आवेन अन्तग'त धारा 311 ०्ቚ०सं० किनांकिकत 03.04.2024 स्वीकार किकये 7ाने का कोई न्यायोቌኌचत आधार नहीं है। आवेन किनरस्त किकये 7ाने योग्य है। आेश अभि=यो7न प्ቌ की ओर से ्ቚस्तुत ोनों आवेन-प्ቔ अन्तग'त धारा 311 ०्ቚ०सं० किनांकिकत 03.04.2024 किनरस्त किकये 7ाते हैं। प्ቔावली वास्ते बयान अन्तग'त धारा 313 ०्ቚ०सं० किनांक 12.08.2024 को पेश हो।

मुख्य न्याቌኌयक मजि7स्ट्रेट

अयोध्या"

¶8The order dated 31.07.2024, passed by the Magistrate, was challenged by the accused applicants in Criminal Revision No.181 of 2024 (Prabodh Chandra Rastogi Vs. State of U.P.) before the Sessions Judge, Faizabad (in short 'Revisional Court'). The Revisional Court also dismissed the revision vide order dated 13.09.2024. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereinunder. "9. आलोच्य आेश के माध्यम से बचाव प्ቌ की तरफ से ्ቚस्तुत ोनों्ቚ ाथ'नाप्ቔ अन्तग'त धारा 311 ं०्ቚ०सं० किनरस्त किकया गया है। ण्ड ्ቚकिWया संकिहता की धारा 311 में उजिXलिYत ्ቚाकिवधान किनIनवत् है-

¶311Power to summon material witness, or examine person present-Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined, and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his 1 evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

¶10किव्ቛान अवर न्यायालय ्ቛारा आलोच्य आेश में बचाव प्ቌ की तरफ से्ቚ स्तुत ्ቚाथ'नाप्ቔ अन्तग'त धारा 311 ं०्ቚ०सं० किनरस्त करने का यह आधार लिलया गया है किक प्ቔावली में वाी मुकमा रमेश चन््ቖ पाल की मुख्य परी्ቌा Page No.4 of 11 अंकिकत होने के प्ቐात् बचाव प्ቌ ्ቛारा इस सा्ቌी से किनांक 19.04.2022,

23.05.2022 व 27.07.2022 को किवस्तृत जि7रह की गयी है। इसी ्ቚकार पीकि8ता सा्ቌी रूबी ओझा की मुख्य परी्ቌा अंकिकत होने के प्ቐात् बचाव प्ቌ ्ቛारा इस सा्ቌी से किनांक 11.01.2023 व 12.04.2023 को किवस्तृत जि7रह की गयी है।्ቚ ाथ'नाप्ቔ में अभि=यु्ሹ ्ቛारा कोई किवभिश्ቖ तथ्य अंकिकत नहीं किकया गया है, जि7सके लिलये जि7रह हेतु सा्ቌी को पुनः तलब किकया 7ाना आवश्यक हो। माननीय उ्ሴ न्यायालय ्ቛारा मामले के शी्ቈ किनस्तारण हेतु किनGश किया गया है।्ቚ ाथ'नाप्ቔ मामले की काय'वाही को किवलቚኌIबत किकये 7ाने के आशय से किया 7ाना परिरलቌኌ्ቌत होता है।

¶11अवर न्यायालय की प्ቔावली के परिरशीलन से किवकित होता है किक ्ቚस्तुत मामले की घटना व्ቧ' 2020 की है। मुकमें में स=ी सा्ቌीगण का बयान अभि=लिललिYत होने के प्ቐात् अभि=यु्ሹगण का बयान अन्तग'त धारा 313 ं०्ቚ०सं० अंकिकत किकया 7ा चुका है एवं प्ቔावली वत'मान में सफाई साቌኚय हेतु किनयत चल रही है। अवर न्यायालय की प्ቔावली के परिरशीलन से यह =ी किवकित होता है किक ्ቚकरण में माननीय उ्ሴ न्यायालय से शी्ቈ किनस्तारण का किनGश है। आलोच्य आेश के परिरशीलन से ्ቚथम दृ्ቖया यह परिरलቌኌ्ቌत हो रहा है किक किव्ቛान अवर न्यायालय ्ቛारा अभि=यो7न सा्ቌी संख्या 1 व 2 कई ቌኌतभिथयां किनयत की गयी, जि7समें बचाव प्ቌ की तरफ से किवस्तृत जि7रह की गयी है। ्ቚस्तुत मामले के तथ्यों एवं परिरቚኌस्थቌኌतयों में किव्ቛान अवर न्यायालय ्ቛारा पारिरत आलोच्य आेश में की गयी अवधारणा किवቌኌध सIमत ्ቚतीत होती है।

¶12यहां यह तथ्य =ी उXेYनीय है किक धारा 311 ं०्ቚ०सं० के अन्तग'त्ቚ स्तुत ्ቚाथ'नाप्ቔ को किवचारण न्यायालय ्ቛारा किनरस्त किकये 7ाने के किवरू्ቍ्ቚ स्तुत पुनरी्ቌण अन्तव'त? आेश होने के कारण पो्ቧणीय नहीं है और ऐसे आेश के किवरू्ቍ पुनरी्ቌण वቌኌ7त है। किवቌኌध किनण'य "Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam 2009 (65) ACC 607 (sc)" के मामले में माननीय उ्ሴतम न्यायालय ्ቛारा यह उजिXलिYत किकया गया है किक- "Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court 'refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application U/s 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under section 397(2) Cr.P.C." इसी ्ቚकार का मत माननीय उ्ሴ न्यायालय ्ቛारा किवቌኌध किनण'य "Asif Hussain Vs. State of U.P., 2007 (57) ACC 1036 (AII-D.B.)" में अवधारिरत किकया गया है

¶13आलोच्य आेश के परिरशीलन से स्प्ቖ है किक किव्ቛान अवर न्यायालय ने ण्ड ्ቚकिWया संकिहता की धारा 311 में ्ቚ्ቈ शकि्ሹयों के अधीन प्ቔावली पर उपलब्ध साቌኚय का न्यायोቌኌचत किव्ቨे्ቧ ण कर आलोच्य आेश पारिरत किकया है। आलोच्य आेश में न तो कोई अशु्ቍता है, न कोई अकिनयकिमतता है और न ही Page No.5 of 11 कोई अवैधाकिनकता है। किव्ቛान अवर न्यायालय ने अपने किनकिहत ्ቌे्ቔ ाቌኌधकार का समुቌኌचत ्ቚयोग करते हुये आलोच्य आेश पारिरत किकया है, जि7समें हस्त्ቌेप का कोई औቌኌचत्य नहीं है। इस ्ቚकार ्ቚस्तुत पुनरी्ቌण की पो्ቧणीयता के तथ्य एवं किव्ቛान अवर न्यायालय ्ቛारा आलोच्य आेश में किये गये किनष्क्ቧ' को दृकि्ቖगत रYते हुये पुनरी्ቌण बलहीन है, 7ो किनरस्त किकये 7ाने योग्य है।"

¶9In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant application has been filed.

¶10Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the purposes of disposal of the present application, are to the effect that on

19.06.2022 an FIR was lodged making allegations against the applicants to attract the offences under Sections 354, 294, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. The said FIR was registered as FIR No.0421 of 2020.

¶11According to this FIR, the applicants and two others committed the crime on 24.01.2020 at about 18:30 hours. This FIR was registered against applicants and one unknown person. As per this FIR, in nutshell, the accused named in the FIR on the date of incident, i.e. on 24.01.2020 appeared in Paul Medical Care Centre, Ayodhya (in short 'Nursing Home') and tried to molest a lady staff of the Nursing Home and on being opposed by the informant and other staff of the Nursing Home, the accused assaulted the informant and also threatened the informant that "I would close the Nursing Home and kill you". FIR further says that the applicants sent the obscene massages to the victim. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicants, as named in the FIR.

¶12It would be apt to indicate that as per the case set up in the present application, the FIR No.0421 of 2020 was lodged on

19.06.2020 as the informant was not having valid licence for the purposes of running the Nursing Home, which came into the knowledge of applicant no.1/Prabodh Chandra Rastogi Page No.6 of 11 (Drug Inspector) while inspecting the Nursing Home on

24.01.2020 (date of alleged incident).

¶13At this stage, on being asked as to whether any complaint was filed/lodged between 24.01.2020 to 19.06.2020, i.e. the date of incident indicated in the FIR and date of lodging of FIR, learned counsel for the applicants failed to point out in this regard.

¶14Thus, in absence of any document related to filing a complaint against opposite party no.2 and the specific pleadings in this regard, this Court finds that the case set up by the applicants in relation to lodging of FIR that in retaliation of inspection made by the applicants on 24.01.2020 in which they came to the conclusion that opposite party no.2 is running the Nursing Home without any licence as per law, is not sustainable.

¶15Now reverting to the facts of the case, which is pending consideration before the Magistrate as Case No.12332 of 2020 (State Vs. Prabhodh Chandra Rastogi). From the contents of the application(s) dated 03.04.2024, preferred by the applicants, for summoning/recalling P.W.1 and P.W.2, respectively, it appears that both the application(s) were preferred on the basis of the statement made by the Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.') before the Magistrate and this statement of the I.O. relates to investigating the matter in relation to the second place of incident indicated in the FIR, i.e. "Kuchery gate" and "whatsapp chat" as also submission of medical documents with report submitted by the I.O. Paragraph Nos.2 and 4 of one of the applications dated 03.04.2024 (Annexure No.6) are reproduced hereinunder. "2. यह कि क कि ववेचक मनो7 कु मार ने अपने साቌኚ य के दौरान इस मुकदमें में दो घटना स् थल बताया है पहले छे8Yानी की घटना पाल मेቌኌ डकल दवा Yाना पर व दसरी घटना मार पीट की कचेहरी गेट पर हई थी परन् तु कि ववेचक ने दसरीू ु ू Page No.7 of 11 घटना के सIबन्ध में न तो कोई नक्शा न7री बनाया है और न घटना स्थल का किनरी्ቌण ही किकया है और न घटना की किनांक को ही बता सके हैं 7बकिक ्ቚथम सूचना रिरपोट' में व वाी के बयान में कहीं =ी कचेहरी के गेट पर मार पीट की घटना का उXेY नहीं है जि7स कारण उ्ሹ सIबन्ध में वाी से पुनः जि7रह कराया 7ाना न्यायकिहत में आवश्यक है।

¶3यह किक ्ቚथम सूचना रिरपोट' के अनुसार मार पीट की घटना किनांक-24/01/2020 की बतायी गयी है और ्ቚथम सूचना रिरपोट' 6 माह बा किनांक-19/06/2020 को 7' हुई है 7ी०डी० के अनुसार ्ቚथम सूचना रिरपोट' नकलቌኌचक नकल रपट व मेቌኌडकल रिरपोट' किववेचक को किये 7ाने का उXेY है परन्तु किववेचक ने उ्ሹ मेቌኌडकल रिरपोट' को किववेचना का पाट' नहीं बनाया गया है और न उ्ሹ मेቌኌडकल रिरपोट' प्ቔावली में शाकिमल किकया गया है और 7ो प्ቔावली मेቌኌडकल रिरपोट' शाकिमल है व किनांक-21/06/2020 की है जि7समें डाक्टर ्ቛारा चोटे की अवቌኌध ो चार किन की बतायी गयी है किववेचक से उ्ሹ किवन्ु पर 7ब सवाल पूंछा गया तो किववेचक ने कहा किक उ्ሹ सIबन्ध में वाी मुकमा/चोटकिहल, ቌኌचकिकत्सक बता सकते हैं। वाी मुकमा ने शे्ቧ गवाहों के साथ ቌኌचकिकत्सक को =ी गवाही से ቌኌडस्चा7' करवा किया 1 ऐसी शा में वाी मुकमा से उ्ሹ किबन्ु पर जि7रह किकया 7ा आवश्यक है ताकिक न्यायालय के सम्ቌ सही बात आ सके।

¶4यह किक वाी मुकमा व पीकि8ता ्ቛारा वाट् सएप के चैट की फोटो कापी ोनों लोगों के संयु्ሹ हस्ता्ቌर से किववेचक को किया गया जि7समें कई चैट को ቌኌडलिलट किकया गया है जि7स किबन्ु के सIबन्ध किववेचक से ्ቚ्቞ किकया गया तो किववेचक ने बताया किक उ्ሹ सIबन्ध में मैंने कोई किववेचना नहीं की है इसके सIबन्ध में वाी मुकमा पीकि8ता ही बता सकती है। ऐसी शा में वाी मुकमा को तलब करके उ्ሹ किबन्ु पर जि7रह किकया 7ाना आवश्यक है।"

¶16Thus, in nutshell, the application(s) dated 03.04.2024 were preferred on the basis of illegalities/irregularities/defects committed by the I.O. during investigation.

¶17In the aforesaid background, impeaching the order, under challenge, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR ONLINE 2023 SC 882 and submitted that as per settled principle of law the application ought to have been allowed by the trial Court and the order impugned is against the principle settled in this regard as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to expression 'Fair Trial'. As such, interference of this Court is required in the matter. Page No.8 of 11

¶18Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the present application which relates to recall of witnesses in exercise of power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C.. It is stated that as per settled principle of law, for filling lacunas a witness cannot be recalled or permitted to be recalled. Prayer is to affirm the impugned order and dismiss the application.

¶19Considered the aforesaid facts and the observations made by the trial Court in the order dated 22.08.2024 and the principles related to recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Mohd. Khalid Versus State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334; Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 444; Mannan S.K. and Ors. V State of West Bengal and Anr., AIR 2014. SC 2950. State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar and others (2016) 8 SCC 762; Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328; Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 and as also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another).

¶20It is well settled by catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with the care, caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. The recall of a witness already examined should not be a matter of course and discretion given to the court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. Page No.9 of 11

¶21The Court is fully conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners/accused and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. At the same time, the Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. Recalling of witnesses has to be applied on the basis of judicially established and accepted principles.

¶22In the facts of the case it would be apt to refer the observations made in the judgment(s) passed in the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra) and Ram Mehar (Supra).

¶23In the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "Before parting with the case, we may point out that the Designated Court deferred the cross-examination of the witnesses for a long time. That is a feature which is being noticed in many cases. Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that the accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section 309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his examination-in-chief is over, unless compelling reasons arc there, the Trial Court should not adjourn the matter on the mere asking. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667 and N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant Shivde (2001) 6 SCC 135. In the case of State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667, this Court deprecated the practice of Courts adjourning cases without examination of witnesses when they are in attendance with the following observations:- "9. We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in Court he must be examined on that day. The Court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the Court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of bhatta Page No.10 of 11 (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the Court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a said plight in the Trial Courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at a doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by every one provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment towards duty. No sadistic pleasure, in seeing how other persons summoned by him as witnesses are standard on account of the dimension of his judicial powers, can be a persuading factor for granting such adjournments lavishly, that too in a casual manner."

¶24In the case of Ram Mehar (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "23. In Bablu Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and another,

(2015) 8 SCC 787 the Court referred to the authorities in Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC, Rattiram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516, J. Jayalalithaa and others v. State of Karnataka and others (2014) 2 SCC 401, State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 and other decisions and came to hold that keeping in view the concept of fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution, the interest of the community and the duty of the court, it can irrefragably be stated that the court cannot be a silent spectator or a mute observer when it presides over a trial. It is the duty of the court to see that neither the prosecution nor the accused play truancy with the criminal trial or corrode the sanctity of the proceeding. They cannot expropriate or hijack the community interest by conducting themselves in such a manner as a consequence of which the trial becomes a farcical one. It has been further stated that the law does not countenance a "mock trial". It is a serious concern of society. Every member of the collective has an inherent interest in such a trial. No one can be allowed to create a dent in the same. The court is duty-bound to see that neither the prosecution nor the defence takes unnecessary adjournments and take the trial under their control. We may note with profit though the context was different, yet the message is writ large. The message is - all kinds of individual notions of fair trial have no room".

"38. At this juncture, we think it apt to state that the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be sought to be invoked either by the prosecution or by the accused persons or by the Court itself. The High Court has been moved by the ground that the accused persons are in the custody and the concept of speedy trial is not nullified and no prejudice is caused, and, therefore, the principle of Page No.11 of 11 magnanimity should apply. Suffice it to say, a criminal trial does not singularly centres around the accused. In it there is involvement of the prosecution, the victim and the victim represents the collective. The cry of the collective may not be uttered in decibels which is physically audible in the court premises, but the Court has to remain sensitive to such silent cries and the agonies, for the society seeks justice. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. We have already explained the use of the words "magnanimous approach" and how it should be understood. Regard being had to the concept of balance, and weighing the factual score on the scale of balance, we are of the convinced opinion that the High Court has fallen into absolute error in axing the order passed by the learned trial Judge. If we allow ourselves to say, when the concept of fair trial is limitlessly stretched, having no boundaries, the orders like the present one may fall in the arena of sanctuary of errors. Hence, we reiterate the necessity of doctrine of balance".

¶25Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the proposition of law on the issue, this Court finds no force in the instant application.

¶26Aforesaid is for the reason that it is trite law that defective or illegal or irregular investigation would itself not vitiate the trial. In the instant case, the application(s) dated 03.04.2024 seeking prayer to recall P.W.1 and P.W.2 were preferred on the basis of illegality/irregularity committed by I.O. during investigation, which is evident from paragraph 15 and 16 of this judgment, and to the view of this Court, on this aspect of the case, even if it is taken to be true that I.O. committed illegality/irregularity during investigation, the P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be recalled for further cross-examination.

¶27For the reasons aforesaid, the instant application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 30.09.2024 Anand/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench