Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
... – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.
1. This is an application filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of Cr.PC, 1973 and corresponding to Section 438/442 of BNSS 2023 read with Section 528 of BNSS 2023 filed for quashing and or setting aside the order dated 13th of August 2024 whereby the application filed under Section 311 of the code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been allowed.
Fact of Case
2. The petitioner is a victim girl and the offence pertains to a human trafficking for immoral purpose where the petitioner was procured for commercial, sexual exploitation and thereafter sold for money. That apart she is a victim of social economic, physical and mental violence at the hand of the accused persons. Her mother lodged the complaint against the present Opposite Party no. 2 and others to the effect that on January 29,2023 at about 16.00 hours her daughter left home and did not return in spite of search she could not be found and then after conducting the investigation a charge sheet was submitted on April 6,2023 under Sections 363/365/366A/370/370A/372/373/376(2n)/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 against
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. The provided excerpt from the case law list mentions the case "State of Rajasthan and another, (2019) 6 SCC 203" and references a subsequent decision "State of Haryana & others, 2023 SCC Online SC 1086" that takes note of the earlier decision. However, there is no indication from the language provided that the earlier case has been overruled, reversed, or criticized as bad law. Without explicit language indicating such treatment, it cannot be conclusively categorized as bad law.
[Followed or Cited]
The mention of "taking note of the decision of Ratanlal" in the 2023 case suggests that the earlier case is being acknowledged or considered relevant. This indicates that the case from 2019 is still regarded as a relevant precedent and has not been overruled or criticized.
The original case from 2019 appears to have established a legal principle regarding discretionary powers, which is being referenced in subsequent decisions, indicating a positive or at least neutral treatment.
[Uncertain or Ambiguous Treatment]
The list does not explicitly specify whether the 2019 case has been followed, distinguished, criticized, or otherwise treated in subsequent jurisprudence beyond mere acknowledgment. Therefore, its treatment remains somewhat ambiguous based solely on the provided excerpt.
The treatment of the case "State of Rajasthan and another, (2019) 6 SCC 203" is not entirely clear from the excerpt. While it is mentioned that a later case "taking note of the decision" exists, there is no explicit statement about whether the earlier case was followed, distinguished, or criticized. Without additional context or judicial opinions, its precise treatment cannot be definitively determined.
The absence of explicit language indicating overrule, reversal, or criticism leads to uncertainty regarding whether the case remains good law or has been implicitly questioned.
**Source :** XXX vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR - Calcutta
Judicial discretion in recalling witnesses under Section 311 of the CrPC must prioritize justice and protect victims, ensuring such requests are substantiated by compelling reasons.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strong and valid reasons to recall witnesses, the protection of child victims from repeated testimony, and the discretion of the court....
The court held that the accused has a right to cross-examine the victim, but restrictions apply to protect minors, emphasizing the need for relevance and care in questioning under the provisions of S....
The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously and for strong and valid reasons, ensuring a fair trial and the just decision of the case.
Rape - Power to summon material witness, or examine person present - It is clear that the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. has not been moved in a bona fide manner by revisionist to secure ends ....
The rejection of a request to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC is valid when it is deemed an attempt to prolong proceedings without just cause, emphasizing the need for fair trial principles.
The court emphasized the necessity of recalling witnesses to ensure a fair trial and prevent failure of justice.
The court emphasized that the power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, ensuring that it serves the ends of justice and is not based on arbitrary claims of coercion.
The power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice, and the mere change of counsel is not a valid ground for the recall of a witness.
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
