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

1997 Supreme(MP) 149

DIPAK MISRA
Heeralal – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
S.L. Kochar with S.K. Tiwari for applicant; P.O. Gupta, Govt. Advocate for State.

ORDER

1. In this revision the applicant calls in question the legal validity of the order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 64/92, whereby he has refused to entertain an application filed u/S. 311 of CrPC for summoning of certain witnesses.

2. The fact situation as has been un-curtained from the petition is that the accused/applicant is facing the trial for an offence u/S. 302 of IPC. It has been putforth that the prosecution had mentioned Dr. Rajnish Choubey, Dr. Satish Kadam Raje @ Rajesh s/o Rampyare Kumasariya and Pannalal S/o Parsadi Choudhary as charge-sheet witnesses but they were not examined by the prosecution. It has also been stated that one R.N. Singh, Asstt. Sub-Inspector posted at the relevant time at Ghansour, was also an essential witness for unfolding the truth. Application was filed for examining these witnesses by issuing appropriate direction u/s. 311 of CrPC. The said petition was orally resisted by the prosecution as the learned counsel for the prosecution did not intend to file any written objection.

3. The learned trial Judge observed as the prosecution has closed its case and does not intend to examine these wi














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