Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.51 seconds)
R. Lakshminarayanan vs Inspector Of Police Cbi on 22 September, 2005 cites

State Of Kerala vs Babu & Ors on 4 May, 1999

Per contra, Sri.K. Ravishankar, learned Advocate appearing for Sri. Ashok Harnahalli, appearing for the 'CBI, by placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Babu and Ors., (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 621 and in the case of The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay and Anr. v. L.R. Melwani and Anr., AIR 1970 Supreme Court 962 argued in Support of the impugned orders.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Assistant Collector Of Customs & Anr vs U.L.R. Malwani And Anr on 16 October, 1968

6. On reading of Section 162 of Cr. P.C. and Section 145 of Evidence Act and bearing in mind the object of the said sections it is clear that an accused in a criminal trial has the right to make use of the previous statements of a witness including the statements recorded by the investigating agency during the course of an investigation for the purpose of establising a contradiction in the evidence of a witness or to discredit the witness. But the question for consideration is, how does the accused exercise this right with reference to a previous statement of a witness made in another case which is recorded by the investigating officer in that case under the provision of Section 162 of Cr.P.C?. This right, certainly does not flow from Section 162 of Cri.P.C. read with Section 145 of the Evidence Act nor does it flow from Section 172 of Cr.P.C., nor is the accused is entitled to these previous statements under Section 207 of the Code. But the accused is not denied of his limited benefit of using the said previous statements given during the course of another investigation. The answer to this question lies in Section 91(1) of Cr. P.C. The language of Section 91 of he Code is much wider than the language of Section 172, Section 161 and 162 of Cr.P.C. If that be so and if the Court comes to the conclusion that production of such document is necessary or desirable, then the Court is entitled to summon the case diary of another case under Section 91 of the Code dehors the provisions of Section 172 of the Code for the purpose of contradicting a witness by using the statement made in the case diary of another case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 139 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1