Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
KISHORE C. SANT
Shashikant s/o Vitthal Kothawade – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial judge's records of proceedings and witness management (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. counterarguments regarding the rights of the accused (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's emphasis on trial integrity and conduct of counsel (Para 9 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court noted significant misconduct and ensued costs for the accused's inattention. (Para 10) |
| 6. court emphasized the necessity for witnesses' opportunities to be respected in the process. (Para 11) |
| 7. application of section 311 of the cr.p.c. (Para 14) |
| 8. conclusion of the petition and directive for trial completion (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
KISHORE C. SANT, J.
. The accused facing trial for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act has approached this Court for quashing of the impugned order whereby the application of the accused for setting aside no cross order and for recalling PW- 2 for further cross- examination came to be rejected by the learned Special Judge (A.C.B.), Aurangabad in Special (ACB) Case No. 21/2018 by order dated 08.01.2024.
2. The facts in short are that, the present petitioner is charged with the offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of
A party's repeated failures to engage effectively in trial proceedings can lead to the dismissal of petitions aimed at granting them further opportunities, emphasizing the importance of respect for c....
The right to cross-examine material witnesses is essential for ensuring a fair trial, and courts must exercise discretion to allow such opportunities, especially when the failure to cross-examine is ....
The court has the discretion to defer the cross-examination of a witness under Sections 231(2) and 242(3) Cr.P.C., but this discretion must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the princip....
Adjournments cannot be sought simply due to counsel's engagement in another court; timely cross-examination must be ensured for fair trials.
Cross-examination is fundamental for a fair trial, and the court must balance the rights of both the accused and the victim when permitting recall of witnesses.
The court reinforced that adjournments in criminal trials should be granted sparingly and only for valid reasons, emphasizing the importance of timely cross-examination.
The right to cross-examine is a fundamental part of a fair trial, which must be upheld even in cases involving procedural delays.
The right to cross-examine witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.
Recall of witness – Paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained.
The discretion of the court to summon witnesses under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to ensure a fair trial and just decision.
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
