Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Steel Rocks INC. , Represented by Its Proprietor Sri R. Shakthi Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Bangalore Elevated Tollway Pvt. Ltd. , (BETPL) – Respondent
ORDER :
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question an order dated 16-02-2024 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal in C.C.No.1903 of 2017 registered for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the Act’ for short).
2. Heard Sri K.N. Karunashankar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri Sridhar Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
1st respondent is the Company and the 2nd respondent is its General Power of Attorney holder and for the sake of convenience both will be referred to as either respondent or complainant in this order. The respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., in P.C.R.No.319 of 2017 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The back drop of registering the complaint is that, the complainant is a Toll Road Maintenance and Toll Collection Private Company. It entrusted the work to the petitioners on 28-08-2016 for FOB construction activities in Hosur – Bangalore Highway road. It is the allegation that the petitioners failed to co
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 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.
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 essentiality of evidence for a just decision of the case should be the primary factor in deciding the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
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 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....
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.
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
