HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3462 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Shri Wali Nawaz Khan, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The captioned criminal appeal has been filed challenging therein, the orders dated 19.09.2025 and 23.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 105 of 2024, State Vs. Omkar Gupta, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning eight witnesses, whose names have been disclosed in the application, had been rejected. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that initially, three defence witnesses were produced by the appellant and their testimony had been recorded. Thereafter, the opportunity of the appellant for producing other defence witnesses had been closed. It has further been contended that in the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and has requested the trial court to summon the eight witnesses, whose names have been disclosed in the application, so that the appellant may not suffer miscarriage of justice. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that from bare perusal of the order sheet of the trial in question, it is apparent that the learned trial court is proceeding in this matter with undue haste and therefore, the opportunity to produce defence witnesses by the appellant Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Harsh Vardhan Shahi, Ripu Daman Shahi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ankit Tiwari, Wali Nawaz Khan Omkar Gupta .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) had been closed in a very hasty manner and thereafter, his application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., had been rejected, without there being any justifiable reason. 5. Shri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further argued that the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is under obligation to call the witnesses to prevent miscarriage of justice to either of the parties of the trial but in the present case, since the trial court itself is proceeding in a hasty manner therefore, the application filed by the appellant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been rejected. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State though has opposed this criminal appeal but could not give any justification to deny an opportunity to the appellant to produce the witnesses in support of his case. 7. Shri Wali Nawaz Khan, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 though has opposed this criminal appeal but ultimately, has agreed that if this Court may provide a time bound framework for recording of the testimony of eight witnesses whose descriptions are available in the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., he does not have any objection. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the order sheet of this criminal appeal indicates that the trial court is proceeding in this matter with undue haste. I further find that three defence witnesses were produced by the appellant and thereafter, in a very hasty manner, further opportunity to produce other defence witnesses had been closed. 9. In the compelling circumstances, appellant has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and thereby, has requested that eight witnesses may be called upon and their testimony may be recorded and further other parties, if they so choose, may cross-examine them. The trial court without considering that all the eight persons whose names are mentioned in the application were present on the scene of occurrence, straightaway, had rejected the application on the ground that the appellant is trying to delay the trial whereas, this Court is of the view that appellant is not CRLA No. 3462 of 2025 2 responsible for any delay in this criminal trial. 10. This Court is of the view that provisions made under Section 311 Cr.P.C. bestow power on the trial court to call the witnesses with an intention to prevent miscarriage of justice. Since, all the eight witness whose names find place in the application, were present on the place of occurrence, I find no justifiable reason, on the basis of which, the trial court could have denied recording of testimony of those witnesses. 11. Since, parties before this Court i.e. learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 have agreed that this Court may provide that the testimony of all the eight witnesses, whose names find place in the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., may be directed to be recorded in a time bound manner, this Court proceeds to allow this Criminal Appeal. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed. 13. The orders dated 19.09.2025 and 23.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 105 of 2024, State Vs. Omkar Gupta, are hereby set aside. 14. The trial court is hereby directed to fix the dates in the trial for recording the testimony of the witnesses, namely, Mayaram Kannaujia, Ramji Kannaujia, Suryalal Upadhyay, Parmeshwardatt Pandey, Ram Samhare, Harishchandra, Musa Kalim @ Guddu & Ramsingar. 15. The trial court shall also provide opportunity to the concerned parties to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses. 16. The exercise of recording the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses shall be completed within a period of six weeks. October 30, 2025 Lokesh Kumar CRLA No. 3462 of 2025 3 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench