Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.48 seconds)Section 391 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 50 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 165 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Ansaram Rambhau Yolve & Ors vs State Of Maharastra on 12 February, 1996
25. This Court again in Rambhau v. State of
Maharashtra had noted the power under Section 391
CrPC of the appellate court. Following was stated in paras
1 and 2: (SCC p. 761)
"1. There is available a very wide discretion in the matter
of obtaining additional evidence in terms of Section 391
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A plain look at the
statutory provisions (Section 391) would reveal the
same...
Rajeswar Prosad Misra vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 6 May, 1965
2. A word of caution however, ought to be introduced for
guidance, to wit: that this additional evidence cannot and
ought not to be received in such a way so as to cause any
prejudice to the accused. It is not a disguise for a retrial
or to change the nature of the case against the accused.
This Court in Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of W.B. in
no uncertain terms observed that the order must not
ordinarily be made if the prosecution has had a fair
opportunity and has not availed of it. This Court was
candid enough to record however, that it is the concept of
justice which ought to prevail and in that event, the same
dictates exercise of power as conferred by the Code, there
ought not to be any hesitation in that regard."
22 The legal position enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, as above, is required to be borne in mind while
addressing the issue of retrial or the issue of recording
additional evidence. The Apex Court has held that whether
there is a need for a retrial or additional evidence depends upon
Rahul vs The State Of Delhi Ministry Of Home ... on 7 November, 2022
34.Cri.Apeal.449.2023.jud.+1.odt
31
evidence. In this case, the evidence was not properly recorded.
Similarly, the prosecution has failed to examine the CA. There
is no plausible reason on record for non-examination of the CA.
24 In the above backdrop it would be appropriate to
make a useful reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rahul Vs. State of Delhi, Ministry of
Home Affairs and Another with connected appeals 4, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has highlighted the powers and the
duty of the learned Judge qua examination, cross-examination
of the witnesses and minute supervision of the over all
proceeding. In this context it would be profitable to extract
paragraph 44 of this judgment. It reads thus:
State Of Rajasthan vs Ani @ Hanif And Others on 13 January, 1997
44. This Court while not accepting the submission that it
was improper for the Court to have interjected during the
course of cross-examination of the witness, had observed
in State of Rajasthan v. Ani [(1997) 6 SCC 162] thus: