M. NAGAPRASANNA
K. Nagaraj S/o Krishnappa – Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
ORDER:
Petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 01-04-2024 passed in C.C.No.642 of 2009 by the I Additional civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Kolar.
2. Heard Sri M R Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt Sadhana S Desai, learned counsel appearing for respondent.
3. A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner by the respondent-State Bank of India invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under Sections 405, 406, 409 and 420 of the IPC and issues summons to the petitioner after registering C.C.No.642 of 2009. The issue in the lis does not concern the merit of the matter. In the proceedings, the petitioner files an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.W.1, the Branch Manager for further cross-examination. Turning down of this application has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri M. R. Nanjunda Gowda would vehemently contend that the further cross-examination of P.W.1 is imperative to prove his innocence, as it is the last straw of opportunity available to the p
The discretionary power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously to prevent abuse of the legal process, especially in long-pending cases.
The power to recall a witness for cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and only when essential for a just decision, in accordance with the principles enumerated....
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 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....
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.
Section 311 Cr.P.C. affords discretionary power to recall witnesses but must be exercised with caution, not to prolong proceedings without compelling reasons.
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 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously to ensure a fair trial and should not be used merely to fill gaps in evidence.
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.
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.