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

1997 Supreme(All) 29

J.C.GUPTA
GHAN SHYAM PANDEY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Harish Chandra, S.C.SRIVASTAVA,

J. C. GUPTA, J.

Parties counsel are present and since the relevant material has already been placed on record by the par ties with the affidavits, it is not necessary to summon the lower courts record.

2. This application in revision is directed against the order dated 5-9-98 passed by IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in S. T No. 85/90 under Sections 302/396/323/149/147/148, IPC, State v. Krishna Mohan and others, whereby the learned Sessions Judge al lowed the application moved on behalf of opposite party No. 2 for recalling PW1 for further cross-examination. The order ap pears to have been passed by the learned Session Judge in exercise of powers under Section311, Cr. P. C.

3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision in brief are that opposite party No. 2 alongwith others are facing trial before IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge and in the said trial the stage of defence has reached. It further appears that after the statement of DW 1 was recorded and the General Diary (Dincharya Bahi of Lekhpal) had been brought on record wherein certain entries are said to have been made by PW 1 showing his presence at a place far removed from the place of incident, a






















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