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

1996 Supreme(Ori) 115

ANUP DEB, ARIJIT PASAYAT
CHARAN ROUT – Appellant
Versus
PRAFULLA KUMAR MANGARAJ – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.NAYAK

PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) THE scope and ambit of proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') so far as it relates to the expression "all his witnesses''appearing there in is the subject-matter of reference by a learned Single Judge, who felt it necessary to refer the matter to a Division Bench, as he noticed cleavage of views. While some of the learned Single Judges held that the expression "all his witnesses" includes the complainant, others held otherwise. The proviso is a new introduction and has no pari materia provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (in short, 'the old Code' ). The learned Judges who subscribed the view that the expression "all his witnesses" includes complainant have emphasised on the fact that complainant is the star witness and therefore, comes under the umbrella of the expression "all his witnesses". While expressing the contrary view, other Hon'ble Judges have highlighted that the choice to examine the witnesses being that of the complainant, there is no legal compulsion on the complainant examining himself.

( 2 ) THE pivotal provision Section 202 in its entirety reads as fo










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