Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.02 seconds)Sudevanand vs State Through Cbi on 19 January, 2012
After hearing counsel for the parties, I find merit in the
present petition. Section 391 Cr.P.C. provides that while dealing with an
appeal, the Appellate Court may take further direction or direct it to be
taken. As such, there is no limitation before the Appellate Court to
entertain an application at any stage prior to passing of the final
judgment and, therefore, the objection of the respondents that
application was filed after about 04 years of filing of the appeal is not
sustainable. The other objection raised by counsel for the respondents is
that the evidence now sought to be produced, as observed by the Lower
Appellate Court, that it amounts to filling up the lacunas is also not
based on proper appreciation of provisions of Section 391 Cr.P.C. In
fact, the petitioner is an accused and by additional evidence, in
evidence, in his defence, he want to prove his innocence and, therefore,
it cannot be said that he is trying to fill up a lacuna, a plea which may
be available to an accused person if, in case the prosecution is allowed
to lead additional evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
"Sudevanand vs State through CBI and other connected cases"
Section 17A in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1