Back
JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Sanjiv Kumar Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for the quashing of order dated 04.12.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana in case titled as ' State v. Parwinder Singh and others' whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (complainant) got registered an FIR No.133 dated 30.07.2014 under Sections 406 , 420, 120- B IPC at Police Station Daba, Ludhiana against Surjit Kaur with the allegations that he (complainant) had entered into an agreement to sell dated 09.07.2013 with Surjit Kaur (respondent No.3) for the sale of a house measuring 75 Sq.Yds. and had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to her. The respondent No.2/Parwinder Singh and respondent No.4/Kamaljit Singh were witnesses to the said agreement. However, Surjit Kaur-respondent No.3 refused to execute the sale deed on account of the fact that she asked him (petitioner) that she would take the remaining amount in cash only. Thereafter, he (complainant-petitioner) had appeared before the office of Sub Registrar on 10.10.2013 but Surjit Kaur (respondent No.3) did not come
The Court has the discretion to summon witnesses or recall and re-examine any person if their evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case, as per Section 311 Cr.P.C. This power ....
(1) Court is vested with a broad and wholesome power, in terms of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any material witness at any stage and closing of prosecution e....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to recall a witness under Section 311 of the CrPC, emphasizing the necessity of evidence for a just decision and the right to a fair trial.
The court has broad discretionary power under Sections 311 and 91 of the Cr.P.C. to allow additional evidence essential for a just decision, even after the closure of evidence.
The court emphasized that Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, and applications to introduce evidence cannot be used to fill evidentiary gaps left by the prosecution.
The court emphasized the duty to allow the prosecution to correct errors in the interest of justice and to find out the truth, citing the wide powers of the court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and Sec....
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
