Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13.5 Mr. N. Jothi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is entitled to produce the relevant materials and to elucidate the relevant answers from the witnesses that were left by oversight or by human error and such laches or mistakes committed by inadvertence, during the conduct of a case should not be understood as a lacuna to be filled up. In this regard, he relies upon the decision in Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell , distinguishing the ratio laid in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India , that the filling up of lacuna is not permissible capriciously or arbitrarily.

that the right of the accused to invoke such powers under Section 311, Cr. P.C. at any stage for the just decision of the case, is a paramount consideration, as held in Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab 1982 Cri LJ 2211;

that the accused has got a right to produce the relevant materials and to elucidate the relevant answers from the witnesses that were left by oversight or by human error and such laches or mistakes committed by inadvertence, during the conduct of a case cannot be understood as a lacuna to be filled up, as held in Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell ;