Partly allowed

Chhotu Mandal Alias Chhote Lal Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Oct 2014Cr.Rev./435/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging rejection of recall of informant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for proving compromise in non-compoundable offence. Court set aside order allowing fresh application for limited re-examination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to file fresh Section 311 Cr.P.C. application for limited re-examination for proving compromise.

Chhotu Mandal Alias Chhote Lal Mandal Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.Revision No. 435 of 2013

¶3

Chhotu Mandal @ Chhotelal Mandal ... Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party .

¶6

--- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate. For the State : A. P. P.

¶7

06/07.10.2014 This application has been filed against the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad in S.T.NO.281/2002 whereby the prayer of the petitioner to recall the informant for further cross-examination has been rejected.

¶8

The fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused in connection with Dhanbad Bank More P.S.Case NO.260/2001 registered under Sections 452,324 and 307 I.P.C. and that the petitioner is facing trial on the charges framed against him.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that during trial the informant was examined, cross-examined and discharged and during the pendency of the case, the informant and the petitioner had entered into a compromise and a joint compromise petition was filed on 06.07.2002; that thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of the informant-Rameshwar Prasad Mandal to prove the compromise petition; that the trial court has rejected the prayer on the ground that the offence is not compoundable relying on the decisions in the case of Rama Paswan Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2007(11) SCC 191 and in the case of Bankat and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005(1) SCC 343 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the offence is non- compoundable as it does not come within the purview of Section 320(1)(2) Cr.P.C.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted that the settled position of law is that non-compoundable offence cannot be compounded. However, he has argued on the limited point on which the witness is to be recalled is for proving the compromise petition.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsels and on going through the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C it is evident that exercise of power under the aforesaid Section is the prerogative of the trial court to

¶13

¶14

recall and re-examine any witness who has been examined or is in attendance in court, if the court deems it fit that the examination is essential for the just decision of the case. Such power can be exercised at any stage of enquiry, trial or proceeding. The second part of this Section also deals with the aspect of re-examining any person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.

¶15

Since it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner wants to re-examine the informant only for the limited purpose of proving the compromise petition, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the trial court and if he does so, the trial court shall permit the re-examination of the informant and cross-examination only for the limited purpose of proving the compromise petition.

¶16

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.02.2013 passed in S.T.NO.282/2002 is set aside to extent noted above.

¶17

With the above direction and observations, the application is disposed of.

¶18

Biswas

Chhotu Mandal Alias Chhote Lal Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu Mandal Alias Chhote Lal Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Kumar Verma Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Hemant Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Surendra Mahto Alias Gorka Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sukhdeo Sao Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Hema Dom Alias Hema Kalindi Vs State Of Jharkhand

Pramila Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand