Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, M. JOTHIRAMAN
Thameem Ansari, S/o. Abdul Rahman – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By the Superintendent of Police Chief Investigation Officer NIA, Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER :
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Under assail is the order dated 16th May 2023 passed in Criminal M.P. No. 639/2023 in Special S.C. No.14 of 2022 (CC. No. 01/2015).
2. The order impugned passed by the Special Court is made against the objection petition filed by the accused in Special S.C. No. 14 of 2022. It is not in dispute that trial commenced in Special S.C. No. 14 of 2022 and prosecution witnesses 1 to 38 have already been examined. During the pendency of the present criminal original petition, the trial Court proceeded with examination of further witnesses and as on today, 57 witnesses are examined.
3. While examining PW45 alleged leading question was asked by the Public Prosecutor, which was objected by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court. The objection was reduced in writing by way of memo/objection petition and the said objection petition was entertained and the trial Court permitted the prosecution side to file counter-statement on the objection petition and the impugned order dismissing the objection petition was passed, which resulted in filing of the present criminal original petition under Section 482 o
The right to a fair trial must not obstruct the efficient progress of judicial proceedings, and objections to leading questions should be raised during final arguments rather than interrupting the tr....
Trial courts must adjudicate objections regarding leading questions carefully to maintain trial integrity while preventing unnecessary delays in proceedings.
A Special Public Prosecutor's authority is limited to the case for which they are appointed, and they cannot challenge orders in higher courts without specific authorization.
The duty of the court to ensure fair trials and the quest for truth in criminal proceedings.
Improper questioning of a witness by State Counsel violates fair trial rights; evidence obtained through such violations is inadmissible, warranting a retrial.
Courts must assess the necessity of additional witnesses for just adjudication without solely relying on time constraints, prioritizing fairness over procedural deadlines.
An advocate in the discharge of his duties to his client must not be hampered by any fear of offending the opposite party or any witness, and in the wake of such a duty it is further pointed out that....
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....
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
