Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.74 seconds)

Raminder Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 19 September, 2016

27. At this stage, to judge as to whether certain questions should have been put to the witnesses in cross-examination or should not have been put to them, would in my view result in prejudging as to what are the material portions of the evidence and would also amount to reappraising the entire cross- examination conducted by the earlier counsel to conclude whether he had done a competent job or not. This certainly is not within the scope and power of the court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. I am supported in my view by the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its order dated 20.02.2008 in Raminder Sing v. State. Where it has been held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Nani Gopal Majumder vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 September, 2011

29. Having regard to the principles laid down in the above cited decisions and judging the factual matrix of the case as discussed above when the petitioner has been examined and cross-examined at length and for the reason that no sufficient explanation for delay in filing application was given for the recall of PW 1 and no question enumerated in the petition under Section 311 of the Code, I am of the opinion and accordingly hold that the learned Trial Judge was right in rejecting the application bearing in mind the settled principle of law on that 13 count. However, since the Court is empowered to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at any stage of the trial, the learned Trial judge may allow the prosecution after the rest of the CS witnesses are examined and cross- examined in full, if for the ends of justice, such recourse is imperative by giving full opportunities to the prosecution and to the defence.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - G C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next