Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Ram Mehar And Others Etc Etc on 24 August, 2016
Interests of victim/ the collective (represented through the prosecution) and accused must be balanced. Concept of fair trial cannot be limitlessly stretched to permit recall of witnesses endlessly on ground of magnanimity, etc. as held by Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ram Mehar (2016) 8 SCC 762.
Ratanlal vs Prahlad Jat on 15 September, 2017
Apex Court in Ratanlal Vs. Prahlad Jat (2017) 9 SCC 340 has elaborately discussed the provisions of section 311 Cr.P.C. that motive and purpose given to the trial court is very preponderance. Discretionary power u/s 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. Recall of a witnesses already examined is not a matter of course and discretion given to court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Reasons for exercising said power should be spelt out in order. Delay in filing application for recalling a witness is one of the important facts, which has to be explained in the application.
State Of U.P. vs Vineet Kumar Tiwari @ Deepu & Ors. on 28 May, 2010
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant Smt. Saroj Yadav against State of U.P. and five others with a prayer for quashing the order dated 2.4.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad, in S.T. No. 19 of 2016, State of U.P. Vs. Deepu and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 605 of 2013, u/s 364, 307, 147 I.P.C., P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad, over an application moved by the applicant under section 311 Cr.P.C., which was rejected, with a further request to direct the trial court to summon the prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3 by way of allowing applicant's application dated 21.1.2019, so that justice may be done.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 12 April, 2004
As per PW1, Shbhash Chandra, her husband, was not present on the spot and Subhash Chandra, examined under section 311 Cr.P.C., has not supported prosecution. When witnesses have not supported case of prosecution. Hence Trial Judge appreciated those facts placed on record and the law laid down by Apex Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & another vs State of Gujarat & others, 2014(2) JIC 173 (SC), and under correct proposition and perspective of section 311 Cr.P.C., the application was held to be of no substance and ground.
1