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

1957 Supreme(All) 308

B.R.JAMES, J.N.TAKRU
RAM JEET – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Kamta Nath Seth, P.C.Chaturvedi, Sri Rama

B. R. JAMES, J.


( 1 ) THIS revision raises two important questions with, regard to the scope of Section 540 of the code of Criminal Procedure. The facts are briefly these. Ramjeet and others were tried before the sessions Judge of Jaunpur for riot, murder and allied offences. In accordance with the recent amendment in the Code, the trial was by the Judge sitting alone. After the entire evidence had been recorded, arguments were heard and concluded on the 10th November, 1956, and the learned Judge fixed the 21st November, 1956 for the pronouncement of judgment. But when he sat down to prepare the judgment and gave a thorough consideration to the evidence on the record it appeared to him that for the just decision of the case the evidence of certain persons who had not been examined hitherto was essential. Hence on the 21st November the date originally fixed for the delivery of judgment he decided to summon and examine those persons under Section 540, Cr. P. C. The defence counsel objected that this could not be done under that provision of the Code, whereas the Public Prosecutor argued the reverse, and both learned counsel cited decisions in support of their respective view points.































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