Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Muncipal Corporation For Greater ... vs Lala Pancham Of Bombay & Others on 1 October, 1964
3. Offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure are tried in different ways. There are trials of summons and warrant cases by Magistrate as given in Chapters XX and XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure respectively. Again, there are trials which can be conducted before the High Court and the Court of Sessions, in accordance with the provisions laid down in in Chapter XXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Code also provides separate provisions for summary trials They contain in Chapter XXII,
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 1967
Again, when he was examined under Section 342, Cr. P.C. on March 24, 1972, he raised similar plea. It cannot, therefore, be said that the prosecution was taken by surprise in that circumstance, it can well be assumed that the prosecution by making an application under Section 540 Cr. P.C. for recording additional evidence virtually wants to rebut the defence evidence In that context without laying down that in no case can an additional witness be called by the judge at the close of the trial after the case for the defence has been closed. I am of opinion that in this particular case the course that was adopted -by the prosecution was irregular and was calculated to do injustice to the accused. As laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jamatraj's case (supra), the prosecution cannot be allowed to rebut the defence evidence unless the defence brings is something suddenly and unexpectedly and that is not the situation here.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 165 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The State vs Jamna Das And Anr. on 9 June, 1954
2. Against the above order the present revision petition has been filed by the State. The contention of learned Counsel for the applicant is that the lower court has erred in law in not accepting the prosecution prayer, made under Section 540, Cr. P.C. and that such rejection is likely to result in miscarriage o' justice. The court below should have, counsel adds, apt lied its judicial mind to the phrase "at any stage", appearing in Section 540 Cr. P C. This phrase includes the stage even when evidence of both the sides has been closed and the case has been adjourned for judgment. The production of the postal record, as prayed for, would have falsified the defence plea raised by the accused Under the second part of Section 540, Cr. P.C. it was mandatory for the trial court to summon or examine or recall the witnesses along with the connected record. Learned Counsel, in support of his arguments, cited State v. Jamna Das AIR 1958 NUC30, Ranjeet v. The State , and Shreelal Kajaria v. The State AIR 1864 Bom 186. The contention of learned Counsel for the State was opposed with unusual emphasis by Mr. M.B.L. Bhargava, representing accused S.B. Saxena.
1