Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Ishwar Lal S/o Chatar Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction for offence under section 138 n.i. act (Para 1) |
| 2. appeal and remand for retrial due to procedural error (Para 2) |
| 3. court's obligation to consider accused's explanation before guilt determination (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. modification of appellate court's order regarding trial procedures (Para 6) |
| 5. expectation for timely conclusion of retrial (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner was tried and ultimately convicted for committing an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide judgment dated 18.09.2021 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.5, Udaipur.
2. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court bearing Case No.85/2023 and vide judgment dated 19.07.2023, the learned Appellate Court decided the appeal observing that the explanation of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was not sought so also that the learned trial Court was not supposed to inflict fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and thus it opt to remadn the matter back to the learned trial Court, however, a flagrant error has been committed by giving the direction that the petitioner shall be heard only on the point of sentence. The sa
A trial court must allow an accused to explain evidence against them before determining guilt and sentencing, ensuring procedural fairness as mandated under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of properly examining the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC to allow them to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence....
Examination of accused – Questions must be simple and specific to evidence against accused – A long string of questions couched in complex sentences must be avoided.
The appellate court cannot remand a case without valid grounds when the trial court's acquittal is not shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence.
The court reaffirmed that re-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should only be granted when essential for justice.
The power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice, and the mere change of counsel is not a valid ground for the recall of a witness.
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
