Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 311 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Natasha Singh vs Cbi (State) on 8 May, 2013
23. The position of law with regard of exercise of powers under
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C, has been very succinctly laid down in
Natasha Singh vs. CBI (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741, by the Supreme
Court:-
Talab Haji Hussain vs Madhukar Purshottam Mondkarand ... on 7 February, 1958
16. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and
it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not
hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the
interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and
therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper
opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be
ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right.
Thus, under no circumstances can a person's right to fair
trial be jeopardized. Adducing evidence in support of the
defence is a valuable right. Denial of such right would
amount to the denial of a fair trial. Thus, it is essential that
the rules of procedure that have been designed to ensure
justice are scrupulously followed, and the court must be
zealous in ensuring that there is no breach of the same.
[Vide Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam
Mondkar [AIR 1958 SC 376 : 1958 Cri LJ 701] , Zahira
Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 4 SCC 158 :
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 1967
In Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1968 SC 178, the Supreme Court has held that Section 311 provides
the power, in absolute terms, to be exercised at any stage of the trial to
summon a witness or examine one present in the Court or to recall a
witness already examined and that it is the duty and obligation of the
Court to recall such witnesses if for arriving at a just decision in the
case, it is required. It was clarified that if an order of recall is passed
without the requirement of a just decision, it would be open to
criticism but if the Court‟s action is supportable as being in aid of a
just decision, the action cannot be regarded as exceeding the
jurisdiction.
Mrs. Kalyani Baskar vs Mrs. M. S. Sampoornam on 11 December, 2006
2004 SCC (Cri) 999 : AIR 2004 SC 3114] , Zahira
Habibullah Sheikh (5)v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 3 SCC 374
: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8 : AIR 2006 SC 1367] ,Kalyani
Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam [(2007) 2 SCC 258 : (2007) 1
SCC (Cri) 577] ,Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. [(2011) 8 SCC
136 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 371 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 240]
and Sudevanand v. State [(2012) 3 SCC 387 : (2012) 2 SCC
(Cri) 179] .]"