SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(AP) 9

MOHAMMED AHMED ANSARI, SURYANARAYANA RAO
MIR AHMED ALI KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HYDERABAD – Respondent


Judgement:-

[1] This is an application for transfer of a criminal case comprising charges for murder and other offences, now pending before the Special Sessions Judge at Warangal, A number of prosecution witnesses have already been examined and during the course of further cross-examination of one of the prosecution witnesses, the Advocate for the accused desired to elicit from the witness the names of persons under whom the witness had hitherto worked as a driver. Unfortunately there was disagreement between the Judge and the Advocate with the result that the Advocate withdrew from the case. We wish to point out that this need not have happened. It is not conducive to the dignity of the Bench or the Bar. On the same day (28.11.1950) the accused filed an application requesting for time to engage another lawyer. The Court gave a day's time and posted the case to the next day. It is futile to expect that in a case of murder when already several witnesses have been examined, it is possible for an accused to engage a fresh lawyer and duly instruct him to proceed with the case, within the next 24 hours. The accused could not engage a lawyer and finding that the Court was proceeding with








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top