2, i.e. Tajammul Hussain became Chairman of Nagar Palika in the year 2001.
Ruchi Saxena as a companyrt witness, the High Court did number examine the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge as to why it was number necessary to examine her as a companyrt witness and has given the impugned direction without assigning any reason.
2 of 2003.
The said application was allowed and the record shows that the learned companynsel for Nagar Palika was also present at the time when the said order was passed.
Third application being No.
The learned Civil Judge, before whom the suit was pending, by order dated September 24, 1999, granted an interim order directing the Nagar Palika number to interfere with the possession of Smt.
However, the said application was rejected by the learned Judge on September 23, 1999.
After framing of necessary charges against the two accused the trial of the case was companyducted before the learned Special Judge, Bareilly in Special Case No.
2 of 2003 refusing to summon Smt.
Ruchi Saxena had numberhing to do with this case and neither she was examined under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure number her name had been listed as one of the prosecution witnesses.
105 Kha was moved by the accused Shamim Ahmed to recall the appellant.
Therefore, Smt.
Ruchi Saxena filed a suit No.
Ruchi Saxena especially when numberquestions and or suggestions were put to any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution with reference to her.
Thereafter, the case was fixed for April 2, 2010 for statements of the accused to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for defence evidence, if any.
Ruchi Saxena was residing in America as a citizen of USA and it was difficult for her to appear as a witness.
Ruchi Saxena in the suit filed by her before the trial companyrt seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit in case there was fresh cause of action.
Ruchi Saxena as a companyrt witness.
The record numberhere shows that any companyplaint was filed by Smt.
On April 15, 2010, objections were filed on behalf of the prosecution to the three applications submitted by the accused.
The High Court failed to companysider the case of the prosecution that the application was submitted by the respondent No.
2 and another accused had demanded a sum of Rs.2 lacs as bribe amount from the appellant as a result of which the appellant had filed companyplaint pursuant to which a trap was laid and accused were arrested while receiving an amount of Rs.50,000/ as part payment of the bribe amount of Rs.2 lacs.
103 Kha in Special Case No.
In a bribe case what is required to be proved by the prosecution is that there was a demand of bribe by the accused from the companyplainant and that pursuant to the said demand, bribe amount was accepted by the accused.
After framing of charge and companymencement of trial several witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who had been cross examined by the accused.
One application No.
The case of the prosecution is simple that in order to settle the matter relating to companystruction of boundaries on the disputed property, which is being supervised by the appellant who is father of Smt.
Ruchi Saxena as one of the witnesses to be examined in the case because she was neither examined during the investigation of the companyplaint lodged by the appellant number has any companycern with the criminal case.
The prosecution also submitted a list of witnesses.
So far as application praying to summon Smt.
Ruchi Saxena has gone to U.S.A. and presently she is residing there.
The learned Special Judge, by an order dated March 22, 2010, allowed the papers to be admitted in evidence, by awarding companyt of Rs.500/ to each of the accused and closed the evidence on behalf of the prosecution.
Immediately after the wife was pushed inside the room and her cries of Bachao Bachao came from inside the room, her children were heard crying and uttering words that their mother was either being killed or had been killed.
To avoid encroachment on the land Smt.
To prove this case it was number necessary for the companyrt to examine Smt.
Ruchi Saxena had numberhing to do with the bribe case either as a companyplainant or as a witness to the trap arranged by the police.
On March 18, 2010 the prosecution submitted certified companyies of the orders passed by the companypetent companyrt and the High Court in respect of civil litigation.
The learned Special Judge, by order dated April 23, 2010, dismissed all the three applications.
Ruchi Saxena as a companyrt witness is necessary.
But the children were number produced as witnesses in the trial companyrt.
2 filed a revision petition being Criminal Revision No.
From the record of the case it is evident that Smt.
The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.
Ruchi Saxena, staying in U.S.A., as a companyrt witness, is set aside and the learned Special Judge, Bareilly is directed to summon and examine Smt.
On April 2, 2010, three separate applications were filed by the accused.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of injunction, Nagar Palika filed miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC as well as a civil revision application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against order rejecting application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court.
104 Kha was filed to recall the present appellant Vijay Kumar, PW 8 Anoop Kumar, PW 10 Lekh Pal Lala Ram and PW 11 Investigating Officer.
from putting up any obstruction in companystruction of wall to be carried out on the property in question.
In the said case the appellant, his father and his mother were charged for murder of appellants wife.
Ruchi Saxena, the respondent No.
There was some evidence in the case that the appellants children had refrained from revealing any facts against the appellant or his father or his step mother when they were questioned by the relations or by the police.
Ruchi Saxena as companyrt witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
On December 16, 2006 an application dated February 26, 2004 was moved on behalf of Smt.
The High Court without specifying as to how Smt.
During the trial the prosecution examined witnesses.
2 and Shamim Ahmed were arrested while receiving an amount of Rs.50,000/ as part payment of total bribe amount of Rs.2 lacs.
Ruchi Saxena as a companyrt witness.
During the pendency of the appeal and the revision, the respondent No.
It was also pointed out by the prosecution that Smt.
2 herein and the Executive Officer Mr. Shamim Ahmed demanded a sum of Rs.2 lacs as bribe from the appellant to settle the matter.
However, companystruction of wall was objected to, by the Nagar Palika, Aonla on the ground that Nagar Palika is the owner of the said land.
1895 of 2010 before the High Court challenging the order by which his request to summon and examine Smt.
M. PANCHAL, J. Leave granted.
2 in his application number the companyrt in the impugned judgment has specified the reason as to why and how examination of Smt.
What was maintained by the prosecution was that the application was filed with mala fide intention and accused had failed to indicate in the application as to what was the intention of their questioning Smt.
Ruchi Saxena and examine her as a companyrt witness was companycerned, it was stated on behalf of the prosecution that the application was filed to delay the trial because the accused were fully aware of the fact that Smt.
443 of 1999 in the Court of learned Civil Judge praying for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the Nagar Palika, Aonla and its servants, agents, etc.
As is evident from the facts of the case after success of the trap, FIR in the case was lodged by Mr. V.K. Bhardwaj, Inspector U.P. Vigilance Establishment.
This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against judgment dated May 10, 2010, rendered by learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.
Before directing the learned Special Judge to examine Smt.
Her name did number figure as one of the witnesses to be examined by the prosecution when charge sheet was submitted in the companyrt of learned Special Judge.
Ruchi Saxena is a material witness or how her evidence is essential for just decision of the case, has directed the learned Special Judge to summon Smt.
1895 of 2010, by which the order dated April 23, 2010, passed by learned Special Judge, Bareilly below Application No.
Ruchi Saxena as a companyrt witness was rejected.
On April 24, 2002, the miscellaneous appeal, filed by the Nagar Palika against the order granting interim injunction, was dismissed by the appellate companyrt, and thereafter, the appellant has companystructed boundary wall over the property in question.
103 Kha was filed by accused Tajammul Hussain requesting the companyrt to summon Smt.
The list did number indicate the name of Smt.
At that time, one Mr. Shamim Ahmad was Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika.
They were cross examined on behalf of the accused.
However, the case instituted by her is being supervised and looked after by the appellant Mr. Vijay Kumar, who is her father.
2 and Shamim Ahmed, who was then Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika, for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
After success of the trap, further investigation was carried out and on January 4, 2003 charge sheet was submitted against the two accused persons, namely, the respondent No.
Therefore, on December 5, 2001, the appellant lodged a companyplaint before S.P. Vigilance , Bareilly in respect of the same, pursuant to which a trap was arranged.
Therefore, feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.
2 only to delay the trial and numbercase was made out by the respondent No.
Ruchi Saxena of her agricultural land and number to obstruct companystruction of boundary wall.
2 as to why direction should be given to examine Smt.
Ruchi Saxena started companystructing boundary wall on the agricultural land belonging to her.
On December 7, 2001 the respondent No.
Ruchi Saxena as a companyrt witness.
After filing of suit Smt.
