Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
Bashir Hussain Peshimam vs Gulam Mohomed Ismail Peshimam And Ors. on 15 June, 1965 cites

Emperor vs J.B.H. Johnson on 26 June, 1919

That procedure envisages leading of all such evidence which ordinarily includes testimonies of the complainant and his material witnesses as would be produced in support of the prosecution before any charge is framed and then the accused plead is taken on the charge and recording the accused plea is taken on the charge that may be framed and under Section 256 ordinarily at the commencement of next hearing [which means an adjournment after framed in the charge and recording the accused plea is contemplated] the accused the is given the right to recall at or such of the prosecution witnesses already examined as he wants for his cross - examination, notwithstanding the fact that the be might have cross - examined them earlier ie., before the charge was framed. It is thus clear that the accused is usually apprised of almost all the material prosecution evidence [and not merely the nature of thereof] in sufficient time to enable to time to prepare his defense. It is possible however, that the Magistrate might frame to enable him to witness name by the complainant under S. 252[2] are examined or he complainant might examine some material or important witness after the accused plea on the charge framed is taken and after the the accused has exercised his right to recalling the previously examined prosecution witnesses which is permissible under S. 256 - but neither of such cases the prosecution cannot spring a surprise upon the defense and sufficient opportunity must be given to the latter to prepare for cross - examination of such witnesses and this could be and is usual ensured by the granting reasonable time to the accused. For instance in Emperor v. P.H. burn, [1909] 11 Bom LR 1153, which was followed in Emperor v. Nagindas reported in AIR 1942 Bom 214 it has been eld that S .256 enables the prosecution of examine witnesses who had not been before examined to whose names had not been disclosed before the charge was framed, and if the accused desired him to enable him to cross examine witnesses whose names has not been disclosed it is open to the Magistrate to give time. In my view, if the prosecution were to examine any important witness whose name had been disclosed for the first time after the charge was framed and if such witness were to give out a long drawn out or complicated narration, it would be open to the Magistrate to entertain or grant a request for reasonable to entertain or time on the part of the accused to enable him to prepare for cross - examination of such witness. Such being the procedure applicable to warrant cases instituted upon private complaints the accused in invariably apprised of all material prosecution in invariable apprised of all material prosecution evidence in sufficient time to prepare his defense and even the offer made by the special prosecution of my view, sufficiently of meets the ends of justice and fair trial to the petitioner and his co - accused.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Emperor vs Nanabhai Nagindas on 2 November, 1944

That procedure envisages leading of all such evidence which ordinarily includes testimonies of the complainant and his material witnesses as would be produced in support of the prosecution before any charge is framed and then the accused plead is taken on the charge and recording the accused plea is taken on the charge that may be framed and under Section 256 ordinarily at the commencement of next hearing [which means an adjournment after framed in the charge and recording the accused plea is contemplated] the accused the is given the right to recall at or such of the prosecution witnesses already examined as he wants for his cross - examination, notwithstanding the fact that the be might have cross - examined them earlier ie., before the charge was framed. It is thus clear that the accused is usually apprised of almost all the material prosecution evidence [and not merely the nature of thereof] in sufficient time to enable to time to prepare his defense. It is possible however, that the Magistrate might frame to enable him to witness name by the complainant under S. 252[2] are examined or he complainant might examine some material or important witness after the accused plea on the charge framed is taken and after the the accused has exercised his right to recalling the previously examined prosecution witnesses which is permissible under S. 256 - but neither of such cases the prosecution cannot spring a surprise upon the defense and sufficient opportunity must be given to the latter to prepare for cross - examination of such witnesses and this could be and is usual ensured by the granting reasonable time to the accused. For instance in Emperor v. P.H. burn, [1909] 11 Bom LR 1153, which was followed in Emperor v. Nagindas reported in AIR 1942 Bom 214 it has been eld that S .256 enables the prosecution of examine witnesses who had not been before examined to whose names had not been disclosed before the charge was framed, and if the accused desired him to enable him to cross examine witnesses whose names has not been disclosed it is open to the Magistrate to give time. In my view, if the prosecution were to examine any important witness whose name had been disclosed for the first time after the charge was framed and if such witness were to give out a long drawn out or complicated narration, it would be open to the Magistrate to entertain or grant a request for reasonable to entertain or time on the part of the accused to enable him to prepare for cross - examination of such witness. Such being the procedure applicable to warrant cases instituted upon private complaints the accused in invariably apprised of all material prosecution in invariable apprised of all material prosecution evidence in sufficient time to prepare his defense and even the offer made by the special prosecution of my view, sufficiently of meets the ends of justice and fair trial to the petitioner and his co - accused.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1