In a revision under Section 379 Cr.P.C. against an order refusing to summon a witness for cross-examination, the High Court held that since the accused's counsel had conducted detailed cross-examination and no case of prejudice was made out, the revision had no merit and was dismissed.
The revision was dismissed.
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
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 750 of 2017
---- Applicant Versus
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri RK Gupta, Advocate For Respondent-State : Shri Ramakant Pandey, PL for the State
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order On Board
06/09/2017
2
of recording of evidence the applicant Navin was initially present in the Court. Subsequently, he complained of uneasiness and became ill, as such at his request, he was permitted to go back. The statement of witness would show that the applicant was identified as accused by his photograph affixed in the arrest memo. The evidence would show that the counsel who was representing the present applicant along with other co-accused crossexamined the witness in detail. Therefore, what was the prejudice caused to the applicant has not been put forth. It was only an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was moved to recall the witness. The copy of such application is also not been placed before the Court to appreciate the facts. Therefore, what prejudice is caused to the applicant/accused is not shown or could be pointed out with respect to material ommissions. The applicant/accused was brought before the Court. However, on his request, he was taken back from the Court and even in his absence detailed crossexamination was made by his counsel. The facts would suggest that no prejudice appears to have been caused to invoke Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. only on mere technical grounds. Accordingly, the revision has no merits and is dismissed.
Sd/-
Goutam Bhaduri
Judge
Ashu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the non-appearance of the accused during cross-examination in the absence of an order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and without demonstrated prejudice warrants a revision under Section 379 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Navin Nirmalkar
State of Chhattisgarh
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
