Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48455 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6666 of 2025 Applicant :- Baburam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sridhar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sridhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pushpendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 15.2.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi in Criminal Case No.657 of 2011 and the order dated 21.7.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Hardoi in Criminal Revision No.66 of 2025 and also to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.254 of 1986 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi pending before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi against the applicant. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was serving as an Accounts Clerk in the Nagar Palika, Pihani and his official duty was to prepare cheques and related documents strictly under the direction of his superiors. He submits that in the year 1986, admittedly, the applicant prepared a cheque no.143502 dated 22.05.1986 of S.B.I. Account of opposite party no.3 in favour of Narsingh Newspaper, Hardoi and the original amount of the cheque was Rs.50/- but the same was manipulated by the drawer Nandram Rathore, Manager of Narsingh Newspaper while altering amount from Rs.50/- to Rs.50,000/- and he deposited the same in his personal account. He added that an F.I.R. was lodged on 19.7.1986 and the Investigating Officer, without coming to the truthfulness and collecting any cogent evidence against the applicant, has filed charge sheet against him and the matter proceeded and even the trial court has also ignored the material evidence, which discloses that drawer Nandram Rathore, has in fact, fraudulently altered the amount of cheque and had received the same in his personal account. He argued that after framing of charges, the matter proceeded and ultimately, the applicant was called for his defence, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein during the query by the trial court, he replied that he has to say in his defence, which is evident from question no.10 at page 111 of the instant application. He submits that thereafter, once the application was moved for calling the witness, the same was denied, vide order dated 15.2.2025 and being aggrieved, the applicant moved a revision bearing Revision No.66 of 2025 but that too was also dismissed. He added that there is perversity in the order passed by the revisional court as it has been held that the applicant did not disclose any ground for opening the opportunity of cross- examination as well as producing the record, whereas the pleadings of revision is enough to show that in so many words, the grounds are taken. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the Judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Natasha Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741. He has referred paras 16, 19 and 21, which read as under:- "16. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right. Thus, under no circumstances can a person's right to fair trial be jeopardised. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of such right would amount to the denial of a fair trial. Thus, it is essential that the rules of procedure that have been designed to ensure justice are scrupulously followed, and the court must be zealous in ensuring that there is no breach of the same. [Vide Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar [AIR 1958 SC 376 : 1958 Cri LJ 701] , Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999 : AIR 2004 SC 3114] , Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8 : AIR 2006 SC 1367] , Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam [(2007) 2 SCC 258 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 577] , Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. [(2011) 8 SCC 136 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 371 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 240] and Sudevanand v. State [(2012) 3 SCC 387 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 179] . 19. The trial court, while entertaining the application filed under Section 311 CrPC, had asked the appellant to provide a brief summary of the nature of evidence that would be provided by the defence witnesses mentioned in the application, and in keeping with this, the appellant had furnished an application stating that the appellant wished to examine one Shri B.B. Sharma who was one of the panchnama witnesses, and who the prosecution had neither listed nor examined in court. Therefore, the appellant wished to examine him in defence. The second person was Shri S.S. Batra, Company Secretary of the appellant, as he was the best person to provide greater details of the Company of which the appellant is the Director. The third witness was a handwriting expert, and it was necessary for the defence to examine him regarding the correctness of the signatures of the appellant and others, particularly with respect to the signatures of the appellant. 21. The High Court has simply quoted relevant paragraphs from the judgment of the trial court and has approved the same without giving proper reasons, merely observing that the additional evidence sought to be brought on record was not essential for the purpose of arriving at a just decision. Furthermore, the same is not a case where if the application filed by the appellant had been allowed, the process would have taken much time. In fact, disallowing the said application, has caused delay. No prejudice would have been caused to the prosecution, if the defence had been permitted to examine the said three witnesses." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the Apex Court has held therein that adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right and denial of such right would amount to denial of a fair trial. Concluding his arguments, he submits that since the trial court as well as the revisional court ignored the settled proposition of law as held in the case of Natasha Singh (supra) and further also passed the impugned orders ignoring the grounds raised by the applicant, therefore, the findings are perverse. Therefore, submission is that the orders impugned passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court may be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 though have disputed the matter on merits nevertheless they have no objection if the matter is remitted back to the trial court for considering the application of the applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant while his answer of question no.10, at the stage of proceeding under Section 313 Cr.P.C., sought time to adduce the evidences in his defence. The application dated 15.2.2025 with prayer of calling witness and some records has been rejected whereas this Court finds that the trial court has failed to consider the matter in its right perspective and further there is perversity in the order of the revisional court, as the ground is overtly taken by the applicant contrary there is finding in the revisional order that no ground is taken to produce the documents/records and to call the witness. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds merit in the instant application. Resultantly, the orders impugned passed by the trial court and the revisional court are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court concerned and the applicant is given liberty to move a fresh application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., within a period of ten days and if such application is moved, the trial court is directed to consider and decide the same within further period of 45 days, while affording opportunity to all concerned. The application is disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Ram Murti Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench