Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.49 seconds)Section 165 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd vs Computer Joint India Ltd on 30 July, 2008
Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd.27, the Court
specifically dealt with this objection and observed that the
5 Cr.M.P. No. 2009 of 2021
resultant filling of loopholes on account of allowing an
application under Section 311 is merely a subsidiary factor
and the Court's determination of the application should only
be based on the test of the essentiality of the evidence. It
noted that: ―
Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991
In Mohanlal v. Union of India
this Court has observed, while considering the scope
and ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of the
words such as, "any court", "at any stage", or "any
enquiry or trial or other proceedings", "any person" and
"any such person" clearly spells out that the section has
expressed in the widestpossible terms and do not limit
the discretion of the court in any way. However, as
noted above, the very width requires a corresponding
caution that the discretionary powers should be invoked
as the exigencies of justice require and exercised
judicially with circumspection and consistently with the
provisions of the Code. The second part of the section
does not allow any discretion but obligates and binds
the court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence
to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the
case, "essential" to an active and alert mind and not to
one which is bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the
section is to enable the court to arrive at the truth
irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the
defence has failed to produce some evidence which is
necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case.
The power is exercised and the evidence is examined
neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, if the
court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of
Section 311 but only to subserve the cause of justice
and public interest. It is done with an object of getting
the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the
truth.
Karnel Singh vs The State Of M.P on 11 August, 1995
(emphasis supplied)
While reiterating the decisions of this Court in Karnel Singh v.
State of M.P.28 , Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar29 , Ram Bihari
Yadav v. State of Bihar30 and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh
this Court held that the court may interfere even at the stage
of appeal:
Param Hans Yadav & Sadanand Tripathi vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 February, 1987
(emphasis supplied)
While reiterating the decisions of this Court in Karnel Singh v.
State of M.P.28 , Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar29 , Ram Bihari
Yadav v. State of Bihar30 and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh
this Court held that the court may interfere even at the stage
of appeal:
Ram Bihari Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 April, 1998
(emphasis supplied)
While reiterating the decisions of this Court in Karnel Singh v.
State of M.P.28 , Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar29 , Ram Bihari
Yadav v. State of Bihar30 and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh
this Court held that the court may interfere even at the stage
of appeal:
Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh & Ors on 31 January, 2003
(emphasis supplied)
While reiterating the decisions of this Court in Karnel Singh v.
State of M.P.28 , Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar29 , Ram Bihari
Yadav v. State of Bihar30 and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh
this Court held that the court may interfere even at the stage
of appeal: