SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Ori) 98

ARIJIT PASAYAT
PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Acharya, B.DAS, D.P.Dhal, DHENKANAL, G.C.MOHANTY

PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER challenges order passed by learned Special Judge, Dhenkanal rejecting his prayer to issue summons to six persons, who, according to him, are material witnesses. Prayer was made in terms of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'cr. P. C. ' ). Prayer appears to have been rejected on the ground that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner. It is petitioner's case that adjournments were not earlier granted for the purpose of securing presence of the witnesses named in the petition dt. 30-6-1994.

( 2 ) SECTION 311, Cr. P. C. reads as follows:"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined, and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. "the Section is manifestly in two parts. Whereas the word used in the first part is "may", the second part uses "s



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top