Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
State, represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
M.P.Kaliyaperumal, S/o. Late Shri. R. Pichai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trial court's re-examination order (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against re-examination by defense (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis on trial court's reasoning (Para 8) |
| 4. court's decision on re-examination permission (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed the above petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court on 19.08.2025, whereby denying permission sought for by the learned Public Prosecutor to re-examine PW-77.
2.The contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner/CBI is that in this case there are totally 16 accused. A1/M.P.Kaliyaperumal is the Head/Consultant of Vocational Training and Entrepreneurship Development (VTED) Division in Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development (RGNIYD), Sriperambadur and A2/T.Gopinath is the Training Officer in RGNIYD. A4 is M/s.Providers Skill Academy Private Limited represented by its Managing Director-A3. A5 is then Director of RGNIYD. A6 to A16 are Societies/Trusts.
3.The case against the accused is that A1 and A2 entered into a conspiracy with A3 to A16 in issuance of work orders for impartin
Re-examination of witnesses under Section 138 of the Evidence Act is crucial for clarification of ambiguities, allowing for new matters with court permission, enhancing fairness in trials.
Re-examination of witnesses is a right of the Public Prosecutor to clarify ambiguities from cross-examination without restricting the scope of questions asked, but new facts require court permission.
Re-examination of a witness is permissible to clarify ambiguities or introduce necessary documents, not merely to fill gaps in evidence, ensuring a just decision.
Section 311 CrPC reads as power to summon material witness, or examine person present.
The court affirmed that cross-examination must adhere to the relevance of questions as per the Evidence Act, ensuring the protection of privacy rights.
The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to a fair trial, and courts must allow re-examination if essential for justice.
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
