Back
A.M. AHMADI, C.J.I. AND M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
S.R. SINHA — APPELLANT
Versus
MRINAL SENGUPTA AND OTHERS — RESPONDENTS
Criminal Appeal No. ... of 1996
Decided on : March 25, 1996
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. It is difficult to appreciate the approach of the High Court in the revision application for the reason that there is no bar against the examination of a witness even at a stage subsequent to the recording of the statement of the accused in exercise of power under Section 311 of the Criminal 9 Procedure Code. This fact is recognised in para 4 of the impugned order.
However, the reason why the learned Judge refused the prayer was that it would require the recalling of the witness at a belated stage and that would cause prejudice to the accused person. What is important is that if the interest of justice so demands and a witness is required to be recalled or even a court witness is required to be examined, the inconvenience that may be caused of recalling witnesses, for cross-examination, if that becomes necessary in order to ensure that there is no prejudice caused to the accused persons, should not by itself be a ground to refrain from recalling the witness or examining a witness. The observation of the learned Judge that it gives the impression as if the prosecution is tilting in favour of one party at the cost of the other, does not seem to be wholly justified. There is no question of suspecting the prosecution or the fairness of the learned public prosecutor.
3. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order as well as the order of the first court and assign the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala to take further proceedings in the light of what we have said above.
4. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
