Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"10. Having heard the counsel of both sides and having perused the records, I am of the opinion that the prosecution should be given a reasonable time before it is called upon to cross-examine the defence witnesses. With regard to the objection that the defence witnesses should not be permitted to refer to a private note book, the position of law is clear. It is open to a witness to refresh his memory by reference to a document as provided under Sections 159 and 160 of the Evidence Act and within the limitations prescribed therein. If the witness has refreshed his memory with reference to any such document as alleged by the prosecution, they have a right to inspect and use the same for purpose of cross-examination as provided under Section 161 of the Evidence Act. Whether the alleged exercise-book said to have been used by D.W. 1 was used for refreshing memory or it is a record of his evidence which was produced verbatim from the same could be tested by the verification of the same by the prosecution and the prosecution can very well insist upon the production of that document for use in cross-examination."

"13. The grounds upon which the opposite party is permitted to inspect a writing and to refresh the memory of a witness are three-fold: (i) to secure the full benefit of the witness's recollection as to the whole of the facts; (ii) to check the use of improper documents; and (iii) to compare his oral testimony with his written statement. The opposite party may look at the writing to see what kind of writing it is in order to check the use of improper documents; but I doubt whether he is entitled, except for this particular purpose, to question the witness as to other and independent matters contained in the same series of writings. I think, therefore, that, at the particular stage at which the prisoners' counsel asked to see what he called the diary, by which I presume he meant the whole series of writings containing the statements of all the persons examined by the police-officer, he was not entitled to exercise the right claimed in the particular way claimed by him. I further think that the Sessions Judge was not bound to compel the witness to look at the so-called diary in order to refresh his memory; and that it Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:5017-DB was wholly within his discretion whether he should do so or not. "

44. It was again a criminal case, wherein parameters have been laid down in respect of grounds upon which the opposite party is permitted to inspect the writing and to refresh the memory afresh.

45. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment is again distinguishable on facts. At no point of time, any or proper application was made for production of documents, and therefore, the Tribunal - based upon the evidence adduced by the parties, has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the appellant has not put in 240 days of service in a calendar year.