IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Srivalli Shipping and Transport Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), is filed against the Order dated 11.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.284 of 2024 in S.T.C.No.27 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kowur, whereby petition filed by 2nd respondent/ complainant, under Section 311 CrPC to recall P.W. 1 to clear ambiguity in her cross-examination, was allowed.
2. A private complaint was filed by 2nd respondent herein/complainant against the petitioners herein/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act, 1881’), and the same was taken on file as S.T.C. No.27 of 2022 by the learned Magistrate. Trial began in the S.T.C. 2nd respondent herein/complainant was examined as P.W. 1 and she was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused; At that stage, the petition in Crl.M.P.No.284 of 2024 has been filed in the S.T.C., under Section 311 CrPC, seeking to recall P.W.l to clear ambiguity in her cross- examination. By the impugned Order dated 11.03.2024 in the said Crl.M.P., the Court below allowed the petition. Challenging the sam
Rajendraprasad v. Narcotic Cell through its officer-in-charge, Delhi
Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan & another
Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat
Mina Lalita Baruwa v. State of Orissa
Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar
Zahira Hahibullah Sheikh & another v. State of Gujarat & others
The court held that Section 311 CrPC allows the recall of witnesses to correct typographical errors to ensure justice, distinguishing such mistakes from substantive weaknesses in a case.
Typographical errors in witness testimony can be corrected under Section 311 CrPC to ensure justice, emphasizing the court's role in administering justice rather than focusing on procedural errors.
The discretionary power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and only for strong and valid reasons to prevent abuse of the process of law and ensure expeditious conclusion....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to recall a witness under Section 311 of the CrPC, emphasizing the necessity of evidence for a just decision and the right to a fair trial.
The court emphasized that the power to recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, ensuring it is essential for a just decision and not merely to fill gaps or delay proc....
The court emphasized that the power to recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, ensuring it is essential for a just decision and not merely to fill gaps in evidence.
Accused filthy language and threatened to complainant - Power to summon material witness or examine - It is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court that lacuna cannot be fulfilled in garb of power conf....
The court upheld the dismissal of an application to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for judicious use of this power to ensure fair trials without unnecessary delays.
A change of counsel does not justify recalling a witness for further cross-examination; sufficient grounds must be shown to avoid delaying proceedings.
The court affirmed that under Section 311 CrPC, the recall of witnesses is permissible to ensure justice and allow the accused to present a complete defence, emphasizing the necessity of evidence for....
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.