NORONHA
DEVAKI – Appellant
Versus
DOODA S. PUTRAN – Respondent
( 2 ) THE only material we have is the petition dt. 8-12-1970 and the written statement dt. 17-3-1971. The petitioner did not seek to file a reply neither side desired to adduce evidence.
( 3 ) THE contentions of Sri V. G. Vasantha Kumar, learned Advocate of the petitioner, that the Court below ought to have taken the initiative for evidence being adduced, and that there is no provision in the Crl. P. C. for a reply being filed, are propositions which have to be stated only to be rejected. I, however, agree with him that the learned Magistrate was not justified in having recourse to S. 489 (2) Cr. P. C. and also in speculating on the means of the responden
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.