Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Mahaveer Prasad Saini S/o Nolaram Saini – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common facts and law in multiple petitions. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's rights to defense evidence. (Para 2) |
| 3. ensuring a fair trial and the necessity of defense evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. granting another chance for defense evidence with costs. (Para 6) |
| 5. conditions and consequences of the granted opportunity. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all these five petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, these matters are taken up together for final disposal and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same respondent-complainant filed similar kind of five criminal complaints against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act of 1881’) wherein at the stage of defence evidence, his evidence was closed. Learned counsel submits that when the case was posted for evidence of the petitioner, he went on a religious pilgrim and he could not appear before the trial court and in that eventuality, his opportunity to examine himself in the witness box has been closed. Learned couns
The right to a fair trial mandates that an accused be granted proper opportunities to present evidence, as emphasized by the court's discretion to allow additional evidence under Section 311 CrPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that fair trial includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove innocence, and adjournments should not be granted without valid reas....
The right to cross-examine is a fundamental part of a fair trial, which must be upheld even in cases involving procedural delays.
Right to lead defense evidence is essential for a fair trial, and courts must ensure opportunities are provided even in cases of prior delays.
The court held that a party's negligence in utilizing opportunities for cross-examination justifies the dismissal of subsequent applications for such opportunities.
The right to cross-examine witnesses is a statutory and fundamental right, crucial for ensuring a fair trial, necessitating courts to allow such opportunities to the accused.
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.
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
