SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Raj) 662

V.S.DAVE
Kanhaiya Lal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.K. Maloo, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.N. Srimal, Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT

1. - I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has come to this court challenging the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, dated 12th March, 1987 by which he allowed the application of Public Prosecutor moved under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure

2. The record shows that trial of this case is proceeding leisurely and learned Public Prosecutor is also partly responsible for this. The decision of the case has thrice been deferred, may be for any reason whatsoever. It is true that legislation has given powers to a court to call witnesses under Section 311 Cr. P.C. But it must bring out a strong case for the same It should not be merely for filling up the lacunas or to meet such situation of which defence can take use. In this case charge was amende I on '-10-86 when the case was listed for final hearing. Arguments for the final disposal were heard on 27-10-86 and case was posted on (-11-96, on which day judgment was to be pronounced. An appellation was moved for recalling Tekchand as some receipts remained to be exhibited But for the reason that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not dictate or deliver the judgment in the earl




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top