Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21913 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13719 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sahab Yadav Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nabi Ullah Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manoj Yadav,Narendra Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Nabi Ullah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present petition has been preferred with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 17.9.2024 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge/FTC, Court no. 3, Ballia, being Session Trial no. 405 of 2023 (State versus Chandradev Yadav) under sections 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC, Police Station Rasra, District Ballia. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the learned Additional Session Judge/ FTC, III, Ballia to re- consider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., during pendency of the writ petition before this Court." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that two session trials have already been clubbed with each other in shape of Session Trial nos. 58 of 2009 and 405 of 2023 triable by learned Magistrate concerned. In both the trials, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by both the informant and the same was rejected vide order dated 21.8.2024 and 17.9.2024. In pursuance to rejection order dated 21.08.2024, the informant in the other connected trial preferred Application under Section 482 no. 36540 of 2024 and the same was decided vide order dated 12.11.2024 through which application under Section 482 succeeded and allowed and order dated 21.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.,Court no. 3, District Ballia has been quashed and the application dated 21.08.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of other informant in connected session trial was allowed. Learned court concerned was directed to summon the doctor/record keeper concerned intending to prove the medical document which has been relied upon by the other informant in the connected session trial in order to prove the medical treatment of injuries inflicted on him on the date of occurrence of offence. It is further directed that learned trial court shall make an endeavor to summon the person concerned as required and complete his evidence as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order dated 12.11.2024. 4. The instant petition has been preferred being aggrieved with the order dated 17.09.2024 through which the specific stand taken up by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be reconsidered and the order rejecting the same was quashed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner is also entitled to seek the same order in pursuance to connect trial pending before learned Session Judge, Ballia 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that although both the session trials are clubbed with each other but the specific statement recorded by the doctor who belongs to some another district is necessary to be recorded and for the same reason application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been preferred but it was illegally rejected only on the ground that both the trials has been connected with each other. 6. Per contra, Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4, vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the petitioner precisely on the ground that once the application has already been entertained by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the statement has been recorded by the doctor there is hardly any occasion available in favour of the petitioner to pursue his petition for seeking direction to record the statement of concerned prosecution witness. 7. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that once the Prosecution Witness are not the same in both the sessions trial, in that case the application preferred at the behest of petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be adjudicated with closed eyes only on the ground that both the trials have been clubbed with each other. The prosecution witnesses belong to another districts and having different responsibilities and as such being the prosecution witness, their statement might be differed in consonance with the clubbed trials. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, order dated 17.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Session Judge/FTC, Court no. 3, Ballia, in Session Trial no. 405 of 2023 is hereby set aside. It is directed to learned court concerned to summon the doctor/record keeper concerned intending to prove the medical document which has been relied upon by the petitioner. However, it is made clear, if the statement has already been recorded in sessions trial no. 405 of 2023 there will be no need to comply with the directions as made above. 9. The instant petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad