K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S.R.PANDIAN
Mohanlal Shamji Soni – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Court's power to recall witnesses or summon new witnesses at any stage of the proceedings is broad and can be exercised as long as the Court retains jurisdiction over the case. This power is to be used judiciously, ensuring that the accused is given a fair opportunity to rebut any additional evidence introduced against them (!) .
The exercise of the Court's power under the relevant section is both discretionary and mandatory, depending on whether the evidence is deemed essential to a just decision. The Court must act with caution, ensuring that such powers are not misused to fill gaps or cause prejudice to the accused (!) .
The primary purpose of these powers is to discover the truth and facilitate a just decision, not to enable either party to unfairly strengthen their case or to prolong proceedings unnecessarily. The evidence sought should be relevant and necessary for the case’s just determination (!) .
The Court's authority to summon or recall witnesses is not limited by the stage of the trial. It can be invoked at any time before the conclusion of the case, provided the evidence is essential for justice (!) .
When additional or fresh evidence is admitted, the accused must be given a fair opportunity to rebut that evidence. This aligns with principles of natural justice, ensuring that the trial remains fair and balanced (!) .
The Court should exercise its powers under these provisions judiciously, avoiding capricious or arbitrary actions, and ensuring that the exercise of such powers does not prejudice the accused or unfairly alter the nature of the case (!) .
The procedural provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code and Civil Procedure Code empower courts to summon witnesses and examine them in the interest of justice, with discretionary powers to recall witnesses as necessary (!) .
The Court's powers under these provisions are to be exercised in good faith, with the primary aim of uncovering relevant facts and ensuring a fair trial. They should not be used as a tool for retrial or to change the case's character after the main proceedings have advanced (!) .
The Court has an obligation to allow the accused an opportunity to rebut new evidence, emphasizing the importance of natural justice and fairness in criminal proceedings (!) .
The exercise of these powers must be guided by the principles of fairness, justice, and the requirement that evidence obtained is necessary for a just and fair determination of the case. The powers are extensive but should be exercised with restraint and responsibility (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
JUDGMENT
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:— These criminal appeals by special leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India are preferred by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 98 and 97 of 1978 whereby the High Court set aside thejudgment and orders dated 2-1-1978 of the Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj made in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 46 and 45 of 1976 confirming the orders dated 19-6-76 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kutch in Application Exh. Nos. 94 and 98 in Criminal Cases Nos. 929 and 930 of 1973 respectively. The factual matrix that have relevance to the questions raised and canvassed at the hearing may be briefly stated.
2. A raid conducted by the officers of the Customs Department in the business-cum-residential premises of the appellant on 17-9-1971 resulted in the seizure of some gold Lagadis bearing foreign marks, primary gold, gold ornaments and silver bricks, coins etc. to the value of about Rs. 8,48,422/-. During the said raid a sum of Rs. 79,000/- was also seized. In respect of this incident, the Assistant Collector of Customs filed two separate compl
Rajeswar Prosad Misra v. State of W.B.
R.B. Mithani v. State of Maharashtra
distinguished : Mir Mohd. Omar v. State of W.B.
relied on : Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra
Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.