Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)
Elumalai vs The State: Rep. By Station House Officer on 11 August, 2018 cites

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 23 September, 2014

8.It is seen that PW1 was examined in chief on 15.06.2011. If the petitioner had really fallen sick on 15.06.2011, he would have filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. within a week, or within a month or within a year. But, he has filed the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seven years later. Shifting of the Court building from Egmore to Allikulam, cannot be a good reason for recall of PW1. That apart, the trial Court while rejecting the Section 311 Cr.P.C., petition, has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab [2015(1) MLJ (Crl) 288] and A.G. Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and another, [(2015) 9 Scale 649], wherein the parameters for re-calling and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses have been clearly set out.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 1531 - D Misra - Full Document
1