Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Section 137 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat on 19 March, 1964
8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the "case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, where according to her it is held that it is really not necessary for the witness to give evidence against a person who called him as a witness to cross-examine him and an apprehension that he is not likely to support the case is a good reason for the Court to exercise powers under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and permit the party to cross-examination his own witness. To my mind, the reading of the Judgment does not give such an indication. In fact, this decision fell for consideration in the earlier cited Supreme Court decision . Taking into consideration the observation made by the Supreme Court in the said decision that unless there are compelling reasons, the Court shall not permit the party to invoke Section 154 of the Evidence Act, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition stands rejected. But however, it is open to the petitioner to make an application if ultimately the evidence of the witness does not support her case and seek permission to cross-examine the witness. If such an application is made, the same shall be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Sivhamurthy Swamy vs Agodi Songanno on 15 September, 1967
Infact, an identical question fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Shivamurthy Swamy v. Agodi Songanno, AIR 1969 Mysore 12. The Scope of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act has been stated very clearly in the decision. It is useful to extract the observation made by the Court in the said decision at paras-16 and 19 which would read as follows:
1