Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.26 seconds)Section 33 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 466 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Jayendra Vishnu Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 May, 2009
12. The other important Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
to which reliance can be placed is Jayendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2009 (7) SCC 104.
Sarabjit Rick Singh vs Union Of India on 12 December, 2007
24. A right to cross-examine a witness, apart from being
a natural right is a statutory right. Section 137 of the Evidence
Act provides for examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-
examination. Section 138 of the Evidence Act confers a right on
the adverse party to cross-examine a witness who had been
examined in chief, subject of course to expression of his desire
to the said effect. But indisputably such an opportunity is to be
granted. An accused has not only a valuable right to represent
himself, he has also the right to be informed thereabout. If an
exception is to be carved out, the statute must say so expressly
or the same must be capable of being inferred by necessary
implication. There are statutes like the Extradition Act, 1962
which excludes taking of evidence vis-à-vis opinion.
(See Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India [(2008) 2 SCC 417 :
Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor (No. 2) on 16 June, 1936
In Manbodh v. Emperor [AIR 1944 Nag 274] , Nazir
Ahmad v. Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) : 17 Lah 629]
http://www.judis.nic.in
15
and Rustom [AIR 1915 All 411] was followed.
Nirmal Singh vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2000
37. We may, at this stage, also notice a decision of this
Court in Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana [(2000) 4 SCC 41 :