Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document: When there are cross cases, the same Judge should try both cases consecutively, recording evidence and hearing arguments in one case before reserving judgment, then proceeding to the cross case with a similar process, and finally pronouncing separate judgments for each case (!) . The evidence recorded in one case cannot be examined or considered in the cross case, and the judge should not be influenced by arguments or evidence from the cross case when deciding each case. Each case must be decided solely on the evidence recorded in that particular case (!) . Both judgments should be pronounced by the same Judge one after the other, ensuring a consistent and fair process (!) . The appeal was partly allowed, and the Judge was instructed to proceed with the police case and the private complaint-based cross case, following the specified procedure, and to prioritize and dispose of both cases expeditiously (!) . Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

Nathi Lal vs State Of U. P. - 1988 Supreme(SC) 438

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1988 Supreme(SC) 438

B.C.RAY, M.P.THAKKAR
Nathi Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:

When there are cross cases, the same Judge should try both cases consecutively, recording evidence and hearing arguments in one case before reserving judgment, then proceeding to the cross case with a similar process, and finally pronouncing separate judgments for each case (!) .
The evidence recorded in one case cannot be examined or considered in the cross case, and the judge should not be influenced by arguments or evidence from the cross case when deciding each case. Each case must be decided solely on the evidence recorded in that particular case (!) .
Both judgments should be pronounced by the same Judge one after the other, ensuring a consistent and fair process (!) .
The appeal was partly allowed, and the Judge was instructed to proceed with the police case and the private complaint-based cross case, following the specified procedure, and to prioritize and dispose of both cases expeditiously (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

Judgment

M.P.THAKKAR,J.

(1) Special leave granted. Heard both the sides.

(2) We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other.

(3) We allow this appeal partly to the aforesai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1988 Supreme(SC) 438

B.C.RAY, M.P.THAKKARNathi Lal – AppellantVersusState Of U. P. – Respondent

B.C.RAY, M.P.THAKKAR
Nathi Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent