HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8358 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. 1. Applicant has approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.09/Special Judge Gangsters Act, Sitapur in Session Trial No. 792 of 2013, Crime No. 44/1992, under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C and 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act, P.S. Atariya, District Sitapur. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant- Nasir has argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur vide order dated 24.10.2024 had issued directions for production of the dying declaration suffered by deceased- Kayum and Yasin, but the order has not been complied with. He refers to Section 233 Cr.P.C to argue that it would be in the interest of justice, if, the relevant evidence withheld by the prosecution is produced before the trial court. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that an application moved under section 311 Cr.P.C has been wrongly dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 13.8.2025, therefore the interference by this Court is called for. 3. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant-accused that the prosecution has already discharged the onus and even the explanation of the accused stands recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, as the case is fixed for recording the defence evidence. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant was repeatedly asked to produce the copy of the dying declaration, but he Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nasir .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) states that the said dying declaration is not a part of the record of the prosecution case. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and considering his submissions, this Court does not find any merit in the case as the dying declaration(s) allegedly made by the deceased, namely, Yasin and Kayum, is not relied upon by the prosecution either in the charge sheet under section 173(2) Cr.P.C or in the prosecution evidence. Once, the alleged piece of evidence has neither seen the light of the day nor it has been relied upon by the prosecution at any stage, and particularly in the absence of any proof of existence of such statements under section 32 Evidence Act, this Court finds that the prayer made by the applicant is misplaced. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial court has carefully analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the contents of the application while passing the impugned order dated 13.8.2025. Notably, the trial court has already granted liberty to the applicant- accused to adduce any such evidence in defence, therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 13.8.2025. 6. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the application is hereby dismissed (Manoj Bajaj,J.) October 7, 2025 Preeti A482 No. 8358 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench