Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.57 seconds)
S.Kannan vs State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent ... on 25 March, 2026 cites

Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 12 April, 2004

57. It was underlined inZahira Habibulla case [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999] that if ultimately the truth is to be arrived at, the eyes and ears of justice have to be protected so that the interest of justice do not get incapacitated in the sense of making the proceedings before the courts, mere mock trials. While elucidating that a court ought to exercise its powers under Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act judicially and with circumspection, it was held that such invocation ought to be only to subserve the cause of justice and the public interest by eliciting evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth. It was proclaimed that though justice is depicted to be blindfolded, it is only a veil not to see who the party before it is, while pronouncing judgment on the cause brought before it by enforcing the law and administer justice and not to ignore or turn the attention away from the truth of the cause or the lis before it, in disregard of its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice. That any indifference, inaction or lethargy displayed in protecting the right of an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P. Nos.30541, 30531, 30534, 30522, 30523, 30527 and 30538 of 2025 ordinary citizen, more particularly when a grievance is expressed against the mighty administration, would erode the public faith in the judicial system was underlined. It was highlighted that the courts exist to do justice to the persons who are affected and therefore they cannot afford to get swayed by the abstract technicalities and close their eyes to the factors which need to be positively probed and noticed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 897 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 1967

14. The Supreme Court, in Jamatraj Kewalji Govani, supra, has categorically held that the power under the said provision is intended to enable the Court to discover the truth and to render a just decision. While the first limb of the provision confers a discretionary power upon the Court, the latter limb casts an obligation upon the Court to summon or examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. Thus, the inherent power is essentially a judicial tool placed in the hands of the Court to ensure that the cause of justice is not defeated on account of inadvertent omissions or the manner in which the parties conduct their respective cases. 27/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P. Nos.30541, 30531, 30534, 30522, 30523, 30527 and 30538 of 2025
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 288 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991

In Mohanlal v. Union of India [1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 595] this Court has observed, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of the words such as, “any court”, “at any stage”, or “any enquiry or trial or other proceedings”, “any person” and “any such person” clearly spells out that the section has expressed in the widest-possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the court in any way. However, as noted above, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary powers should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates and binds the court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case, “essential” to an active and alert mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the section is to enable the court to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the prosecution https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P. Nos.30541, 30531, 30534, 30522, 30523, 30527 and 30538 of 2025 or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. The power is exercised and the evidence is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, if the court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of Section 311 but only to subserve the cause of justice and public interest. It is done with an object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth.” “46. Ultimately, as noted above, ad nauseam the duty of the court is to arrive at the truth and subserve the ends of justice. Section 311 of the Code does not confer on any party any right to examine, cross- examine and re-examine any witness. This is a power given to the court not to be merely exercised at the bidding of any one party/person but the powers conferred and discretion vested are to prevent any irretrievable or immeasurable damage to the cause of society, public interest and miscarriage of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 571 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 3 Next