Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.
Ram Karan S/o Narayan Lal - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1250 OF 2016
Decided On : 16-11-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Choudhary.
For the State : Mr. LR Upadhaya, P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-calling of witnesses may be justified if ample opportunity for cross-examination has already been given.
Headnote:
Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Rejection of Application for Re-calling of Witnesses - The court rejected the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-call witnesses PW-4 and PW-7, emphasizing that ample opportunity for cross-examination had already been given and there was no reason to re-summon the witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-call witnesses PW-4 and PW-7, contending that certain questions were not asked to the witnesses relating to the age etc.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that ample opportunity for cross-examination had already been given to the petitioner, and there was no reason to re-summon the witnesses. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected.
Issues: The issue was whether the rejection of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-calling of witnesses PW-4 and PW-7 was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that ample opportunity for cross-examination had already been given to the petitioner, and there was no reason to re-summon the witnesses.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the rejection of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-calling of witnesses PW-4 and PW-7.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.08.2016 vide which an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-calling of witnesses PW-4 and PW-7 was rejected.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that both the above witnesses are important and certain questions were not asked to the witnesses relating to the age etc.
3. I have considered the rival contentions. This is a case pertaining to Section 452 & 354 of IPC and under POSCO Act.
4. As per the impugned order, it is apparent that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine these witnesses and a detail cross-examination has already been done. In those circumstances, there was no rhyme or reason to re-summon the witnesses invoking the provision under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned Trial Court while dealing with the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has rightly rejected the application. The impugned order does not call for any interference, the revision petition is dismissed.
6. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed.
