Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination of a witness was dismissed. The court held that the application was devoid of merits as the earlier counsel could have applied immediately after the court conducted the cross-examination, but failed to do so; a later change of counsel does not confer a new right.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:208838
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32502 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh K.S. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
Order Date :- 1.11.2023 pks
Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether granting an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination after the conclusion of prosecution evidence and a gap of two years constitutes an illegality.
Whether the failure to immediately apply for cross-examination of a witness whose cross-examination was conducted by the court deprives the applicant of that right.
Whether a change of counsel at a later stage entitles the applicant to recall a witness for cross-examination long after the trial progressed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rafiq and Others vs. Munshilal and othersReferred¶9
AIR 1981 SC 1400 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Singh
State of U.P.
Anish Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
