The High Court in an Criminal Application held that the grievance regarding the failure to record evidence afresh did not warrant interference under section 326(1) CrPC, thus rejecting the application.
Application rejected; liberty to recall witnesses granted pending merit by learned Judge.
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.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 928 OF 2008
Ranjitsingh S/o Ambarsingh Rajput and others Versus Chotusingh S/o Onkarsingh Rajput and another. ***
Mr. Pravin S. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mrs. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2/ State.
The order is absolutely in terms of section 326
(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. No interference is warranted. Application rejected.
[K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.]
Dated:28/08/2009.
ans/928
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should have recorded evidence of witnesses afresh instead of the order dated 26 September 2007.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranjitsingh S/o Ambarsingh Rajput and others
Chotusingh S/o Onkarsingh Rajput
K. U. Chandiwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
