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

2021 Supreme(MP) 548

SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Sachin – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Ms.Sonali Goyal for applicant; Valmiki Shakargayen, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER (ORAL)

1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2021 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Barwah in S.T.No.116/2013 whereby the right of the petitioner/accused to cross examine the Investigating Officer has been closed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is facing the trial for offence under sections 342, 366, 376 of the IPC in the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Barwah, District Khargone wherein the Investigation Officer, P.W./15 D.K. Tiwari was being examined and in the course of his cross examination on 6.1.2021, a question was asked by the counsel appearing of the petitioner/accused which, according to the learned Judge of the trial Court, was a matter of argument only and was not relevant. Hence, on this question the learned Judge of the trial Court directed the counsel appearing for the petitioner not to ask such irrelevant questions, otherwise his right to cross examine the witness can be closed. However, when the subsequent question was asked by the counsel for the petitioner, which according to the lear

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