Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)Section 311 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991
50. The Court while reiterating the principle
enunciated in Mohanlal Shamji Soni [Mohanlal Shamji
Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 : 1991 SCC
(Cri) 595] stressed upon the wide ambit of Section 311
which allows the power to be exercised at any stage and
held that : (Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh case [Zahira
Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158
: 2004 SCC (Cri) 999] , SCC p. 189, para 44)
"44. The power of the court under Section 165
of the Evidence Act is in a way complementary to its
power under Section 311 of the Code. The section
consists of two parts i.e. : (i) giving a
discretion to the court to examine the witness
at any stage, and (ii) the mandatory portion
which compels the court to examine a witness
if his evidence appears to be essential to the
Rajendra Prasad vs Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer ... on 12 July, 1999
In Rajendra Prasad [Rajendra
Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6 SCC 110 : 1999 SCC (Cri)
1062] , the Court had held that : (Rajendra Prasad
case [Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6 SCC 110 :
Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 12 April, 2004
(Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh case [Zahira Habibulla H.
Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC
(Cri) 999] , SCC p. 196, para 64)
"64. It is no doubt true that the accused
persons have been acquitted by the trial court and
the acquittal has been upheld, but if the acquittal is
unmerited and based on tainted evidence, tailored
investigation, unprincipled prosecutor and
perfunctory trial and evidence of
threatened/terrorised witnesses, it is no acquittal in
the eye of the law and no sanctity or credibility can
be attached and given to the so-called findings. It
seems to be nothing but a travesty of truth, fraud on
the legal process and the resultant decisions of
courts -- coram non judis and non est. There is,
therefore, every justification to call for interference
in these appeals."."
Section 91 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 4 January, 2019
NC: 2026:KHC:6889
CRL.P No. 271 of 2026
HC-KAR
Kumar [Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019) 14 SCC
328 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 839] observed : (SCC p. 331,
paras 11-12)
"11. It is well settled that the power
conferred under Section 311 should be invoked
by the court only to meet the ends of justice.
The power is to be exercised only for strong
and valid reasons and it should be exercised
with great caution and circumspection. The
court has wide power under this Section to
even recall witnesses for re-examination or
further examination, necessary in the interest
of justice, but the same has to be exercised
after taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of each case. The power under
this provision shall not be exercised if the court
is of the view that the application has been
filed as an abuse of the process of law.
Section 165 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 8 March, 2006
49. Further, in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh
(5) [Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat,
(2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8] , the Court
reiterated the extent of powers under Section 311
and held that : (SCC p. 392, para 27)
Varsha Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2022
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused
submits that it should be allowed only on exemplary costs. The
petitioner is the complainant, files an application under Section
311 of Cr.P.C. The purport of section 311 need not detain this
court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court
has interpreted Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in the case of
VARSHA GARG v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1, and has
held as follows: