Back
GITA GOPI
GITESH GHANSHYAMBHAI RAVAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GITA GOPI, J.
1. Rule. Learned APP and Mr. Kirit R. Chaudhari, learned advocates waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respective respondents. Rule is fixed forthwith.
2. The party-in-person, Gitesh Ghanshyambhai Raval, is before this Court in revisional jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) making a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheralu in Criminal Case No. 194 of 2017.
3. The petitioner as an accused, party-in- person submitted that he has been charge-sheeted under sections 297, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the alleged accident dated 05.09.2016 at about 19 Hours.
3.1 The petitioner party-in-person stated that the vehicle involved is his Maruti Car bearing No. GJ-27-J-K-2779. He is resident of Ishanpur, Ahmedabad, and served in a private Engineering Company at Ahmedabad. Party-in-person submits that he has retired in the year 2017 by taking Voluntary Retirement. Party-in-person submitted that he fails to understand as to how he came to be charge-sheeted in t
The court established that an order affecting the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses is not merely interlocutory and can be challenged under revisional jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of discretion under section 231(2) of Cr.PC must be based on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of cross-examination, and....
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....
The discretion to defer cross-examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously to prevent potential prejudice to the defense, particularly in cases involving related witn....
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 witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.
An application to recall a witness for cross-examination is interlocutory and not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of CrPC; valid reasons must be provided for such requests.
Accused have a right to represent themselves through a pleader but cannot cross-examine witnesses using non-advocates without court permission, ensuring procedural integrity.
The central legal point established is the importance of fair trial and the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses, allowing the recall of witnesses for cross-examination to ensure the collection....
Criminal Revision - Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powe....
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
