Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 185 (ALL)

MAMTA DEVI v. STATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS

CRLR/1062/2026 · 2026-02-25

Abdul Shahid

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1062 of 2026 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall and further examination of the complainant/P.W.-1. The said application was rejected by the learned trial court. It is contended that such rejection would cause serious prejudice to the revisionist and adversely affect his right to a fair trial. 3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the aforesaid sessions trial has been pending since 2017. The statement of P.W.-1 was recorded on 22.11.2021 and 05.04.2022. Thereafter, the cross-examination was concluded on 13.10.2025. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed at a highly belated stage with a view to delay the proceedings; therefore, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 4. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned trial court has passed a detailed, speaking, and well-reasoned order. It has specifically recorded that the examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 was concluded on 22.11.2021 and 05.04.2022. Thereafter, the accused persons took more than three years to conclude the cross-examination, which was ultimately completed on 13.10.2025. Thus, approximately four years were consumed in recording the statement of the complainant/P.W.-1 from 22.11.2021 to 13.10.2025. 5. Sufficient opportunity had been afforded to the revisionist to cross- Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Someshwar Pandey, Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mamta Devi .....Revisionist(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) examine and lead evidence. No litigant can claim unlimited time to recall a witness again and again for further deposition. 6. In view thereof, neither there is any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. February 26, 2026 M. Tarik CRLR No. 1062 of 2026 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad