Back
K. NATARAJAN
Mid West Builders Private Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vickram H K Kalmdy S/O Sri Venkatesh Dutt – Respondent
ORDER :
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the XXI ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.13178/2022 by allowing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the accused who is facing trial before the Magistrate on the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act and after pleading not guilty, the respondent adduced the evidence as PW.1 and during the cross-examination of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, the complainant has given some admission in the cross-examination and at that time, the respondent-complainant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the himself for leading further examination-inchief which was allowed by the trial Court without considering the objection raised by the petitioner-accused. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-accused is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriou
The court emphasized the essentiality of evidence for a just decision and the duty of the court to ensure 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 in evidence.
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 power under Section 311, Cr.P.C. should be exercised with restraint and caution, especially at the final stage of the trial, and delay in filing the application may impact the court's decision.
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.
The court affirmed that the denial to recall a witness based solely on delay violates the accused's right to a fair trial, underscoring the importance of using Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to access es....
A change of counsel does not justify recalling a witness for further cross-examination; sufficient grounds must be shown to avoid delaying proceedings.
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
