Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.45 seconds)Rajendra Prasad vs Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer ... on 12 July, 1999
In the present case, the second question has been raised
that Section 311 Cr.P.C. does not envisage for calling the document
for being exhibited but only talks about the examination of the witness
and he has placed reliance on the two judgments this Court as has
been explained hereinabove which is not required to be repeated again
but in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ram Mehar (supra) wherein in the case of Rajendra Prasad (supra),
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if proper evidence was not
adduced or relevant material was not brought on record due to
inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such
mistake to be rectified. This part of excerpts of judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court itself indicates that Section 311 Cr.P.C. includes
power for examining the witnesses as well as admitting the relevant
material which were not brought on record. This view is also
supported by Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. which empowers the court to
give direction for production of any document or other thing which is
necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, enquiry or
other proceeding under the Code or before such court or officer. So if
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3048 of 2016 dt. 07-03-2017 35
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is read with Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. in
that circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial court is bereft of
power to call the witness as well as material document for its
admission during course of trial. Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is couched
in widest term which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that at any stage this power can be used for the ends of justice. In such
circumstances, when the court below has already directed for
examination of the licence holder including production of the gun
license, in such circumstances, the interference with the order of the
court below will not sub serve the justice.
Section 91 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 12 April, 2004
"3. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Jahira Habibulla vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
2004(4) SCC 158 it was held that the power under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. is exercised and the evidence
is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the
defence and the object of the section is to enable
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3048 of 2016 dt. 07-03-2017 32
the Court to arrive at the truth, irrespective of the
fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed
to adduce some evidence which is necessary for a
just and proper disposal of the case and to uphold
the truth and if the prosecutor is remiss in
someway the court can control the proceedings
effectively so that the ultimate object of truth is
arrived at. It is also well established that the power
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any
stage of the proceeding provided the examination
of such person is essential for just decision of the
case. However, the same cannot be used to fill up
the lacuna or loopholes in either prosecution or
defence case."
Section 165 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Keshav Choudhary And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2000
In this connection a reference may also be
made to a judgment delivered by me in the case
of Keshab Choudhary v. State of Bihar [2000
(2) B.B.C.J. 276 : 2000 (3) PLJR 220]. Here in
this case also I had examined the scope of
Section 311 of the Code and it was held that
under the facts and circumstances of the said
case the provisions of Section 311 of the Code
were not attracted.
U.T. Of Dadra & Haveli & Anr vs Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan on 14 August, 2006
In U.T. of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and another v.
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan [(2006) 7 SCC 529], the
Court was dealing with an order passed by the High court
whereby it had allowed the revision and set aside the order
passed by the learned trial judge who had exercised the
power under Section 311 CrPC to summon certain
witnesses. The Court referred to the earlier authorities and
ruled that it is well settled that the exercise of power under
Section 311 CrPC should be resorted to only with the
object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof of
such facts which lead to a just and correct decision of the
case, as it is the primary duty of a criminal court. Calling a
witness or re-examining a witness already examined for
the purpose of finding out the truth in order to enable the
court to arrive at a just decision of the case cannot be
dubbed as "filling in a lacuna in the prosecution case"
Vindyawashini Prasad @ Vindhyawashini ... vs Shashi Kant Verma And Anr. on 18 October, 2001
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3048 of 2016 dt. 07-03-2017 27
In the case of Vindyawashini Prasad @ Vindhyawashini Pd.
Verma Vs. Shashi Kant Verma and Anr. reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 236, the
Court held that there is no mention in the provision for the production
of document. As a matter of fact, the Section does not at all refer to
any document or documentary evidence. Under this circumstance, can
it be said that the Court can order production of document in exercise
of power conferred by this Section. It is obvious that this could not be
done as there is no provision in this case for recalling of any of the
document whatsoever. The entire Section is only for examination of a
person as an witness not production of witness but held that in a
situation when the Court feels that examination of witness is essential
to the just decision of the case, it is the duty of the Court to summon
and examine or recall or re-examine any such person and the Court
has set aside the order of the court below giving direction for
production of the document in exercise of power under Section 311 of
the Cr.P.C. It is relevant to quote relevant portion of the aforesaid
judgment which reads as follows:-