cross of complainant
regarding some entries in the statement because earlier complainant
said about those entries in his cross examination.
4. That recalling ... complainant, but it is pursuant to recording the statement of one DW that the
accused asserts that the complainant is required to be recalled. However
cross of complainant
regarding some entries in the statement because earlier complainant
said about those entries in his cross examination.
4. That recalling ... complainant, but it is pursuant to recording the statement of one DW that the
accused asserts that the complainant is required to be recalled. However
cross of complainant
regarding some entries in the statement because earlier complainant
said about those entries in his cross examination.
4. That recalling ... complainant, but it is pursuant to recording the statement of one DW that the
accused asserts that the complainant is required to be recalled. However
cross of complainant
regarding some entries in the statement because earlier complainant
said about those entries in his cross examination.
4. That recalling ... complainant, but it is pursuant to recording the statement of one DW that the
accused asserts that the complainant is required to be recalled. However
order dated 30.08.2012 whereby her
application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the complainant Dr.Samuel
Silas for his cross-examination has been dismissed ... evidence of the complainant is already there. In
a summary trial, a complainant or his witness cannot
be recalled in the Court for cross-examination
order dated 30.08.2012 whereby her
application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the complainant Dr.Samuel
Silas for his cross-examination has been dismissed ... evidence of the complainant is already there. In
a summary trial, a complainant or his witness cannot
be recalled in the Court for cross-examination
application for recall/re-
examination of a witness, meaning thereby that it is obligatory
for the court to recall complainant or its witnesses ... application for recall/re-examination of
a witness, meaning thereby that it is obligatory for the court to
recall complainant or its witnesses
costs. Thereafter on 12-9-2011 accused moved an
application for recalling the complainant for his cross
examination. Vide impugned order, the application was
dismissed ... evidence of the
complainant is already there. In a summary trial, a
complainant or his witness cannot be recalled in the
Court for cross-examination
again opposed by the
complainant. Both these applications were allowed by the learned
Magistrate and the complainant was recalled. Thus, the above
decision will ... disclosing their probable defence for the purpose of
recalling the complainant. Thus, there is no ground even to recall the
order of closing of cross
application for recall/re-examination of a witness, meaning
thereby that it is obligatory for the court to recall complainant or
.
its witnesses ... application for recall/re-examination of a witness, meaning thereby that it is
obligatory for the court to recall complainant or its witnesses
