Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)
Mejar Singh @ Major Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 September, 2023 cites

The State Represented By The Deputy ... vs Tr. N. Seenivasagan on 1 March, 2021

6. No doubt, the provisions of Section 311 Cr.PC do empower the Court to summon material witnesses and examine them at any stage of trial, inquiry or other proceedings under Cr.PC, however, these powers under Section 311 Cr.PC have to be exercised in accordance with the principles of Criminal Law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy Superintendent of Police vs. Tr.N.Seenivasagan, (decided on 01.03.2021) (Crl. Appeal Nos.231-232 of 2021) has categorically observed that new evidence should not be used as a disguise for retrial and the pre-condition while considering an application under Section 311 Cr.PC is that the evidence, which is sought to be summoned, is germane to the issues around which the case revolves. However, as already observed earlier no reason much less cogent finds reflected in the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.PC (Annexure P-4) as to why these three witnesses should be summoned. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in concurring with the observations made by the Court below that the application under Section 311 Cr.PC had been filed just to fill up the lacuna, in his case, by the complainant.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 15 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1