Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.50 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 311 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ag vs Shiv Kumar Yadav And Anr on 10 September, 2015
12. This Court is of the considered opinion that the above
said decision aptly applies to the facts of the present case. At
this juncture, it may be appropriate to refer to some of the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AG v.
Shiv Kumar Yadav and Others3 which are to be kept in
mind for exercising power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., and the
relevant to the present context are:
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.Sanjeeva Rao vs State Of A.P on 2 July, 2012
In P.Sanjeeva Rao's case referred to supra, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal against the
order of High Court in a Criminal Revision Petition, confirming
the order passed by the Trial Judge. In the said case,
applications were filed under Sections 242 and 311 Cr.P.C., to
recall prosecution witnesses for cross examination. The
prosecution opposed the said applications, inter alia,
contending that recall of P.Ws.1 and 2 for cross examination
more than 3 ½ years, after they had been examined in relation
to an incident that had taken place seven years back was
bound to cause prejudice to the prosecution. The petitions
were dismissed.
Section 242 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The State Represented By The Deputy ... vs Tr. N. Seenivasagan on 1 March, 2021
In Tr.N.Seenivasagan's case referred to supra, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a matter wherein the
miscellaneous petition filed by the prosecution under Section
311 of Cr.P.C., for recalling some witnesses dismissed by the
Trial Court was confirmed by the High Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court at para No.15, inter alia, held as follows:
Hanuman Ram vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 October, 2008
While setting the said order as confirmed by
the High Court aside, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para No.12,
referred to the observations made in Hanuman Ram v. The
State of Rajasthan & Others, (2008) 15 SCC 652, the
relevant portion of which, may be extracted for ready
reference:
1