Dismissed

Mahendra Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC8 Aug 2016CR. MISC./4746/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal reference petition invoking inherent jurisdiction, the Patna High Court rejected the plea to quash the Sessions Judge's order which denied the defence request for recall of witnesses. The Court held that since only a clerical error was corrected in the charge without substantial change, the lower court rightly refused to recall witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the order rejecting the prayer for recall of witnesses is dismissed; trial concluded within three months.

Mahendra Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.4746 of 2016

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 1996 Thana -DHANAHA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)

¶3

====================================================== Mahendra Mahto, Son of Late Yogi Mahto, resident of village - Dihi, P.S. Dhanaha, District - West Champaran .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivjee Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶4

3 08-08-2016 Heard Sri Shivjee Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nityanand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

¶5

The sole petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 16.01.2016 passed by the learned 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bagaha (West Champaran) in Sessions Trial No.644 of 1997, whereby he has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the defence under Section 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recall of the witnesses for further cross-examination. Prior to this, by order dated 30.10.2015, which has been brought on record by filing supplementary affidavit, since in earlier charge, there were some clerical error and, as such, some error was removed by order dated

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4746 of 2016 (3) dt.08-08-2016

¶7

2/2

¶8

30.10.2015. Thereafter, on the plea that new charge has been framed, a prayer has been made for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination. Fact remains that Sessions trial was initiated in the year 1997 for the occurrence, which took place some time in the year 1996.

¶9

I have perused the order dated 30.10.2015, whereby clerical error was removed. In view of the fact that there is no substantial change in the charge and only clerical error was removed, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the petition of the defence for recalling the witnesses for further crossexamination. The petition stands rejected.

¶10

Keeping in view the fact that the trial is of the year 1997, while rejecting the present petition, it is desirable to direct the trial court to take all steps, so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶11

Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below

¶12

forthwith.

¶13

(Rakesh Kumar, J)

¶14

NKS/U

Mahendra Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Mandal @ Manoj Yadav @ Mahadeo Yadav @ Surendra Yadav and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Naveen Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Krishnandan Sharma @ Krishn Nandan Sharma and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Yogeshwar Singh @ Chotelal Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Arun Kumar Choudhary @ Arun Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar

Manish Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar