Dismissed

Ravi @ Kallu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Mar 2012CRR/509/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order declining an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall a witness for specific questions. The court held that recalling a witness examined at length to remedy an inadvertent omission constitutes fulfilling a lacuna, which is not a ground for recall.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed as the recall of an already examined witness to fulfill a lacuna is not permissible.

Ravi @ Kallu Vs State of Haryana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Rev. No.509 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Rev. No.509 of 2012 Date of Decision: 13.03.2012

Ravi @ Kallu

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶10

Present:Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶15

¶16

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶17

This is a revision petition against the Order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C has been declined.

¶18

While impugning the said Order, the only ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that inadvertently PW-3 could not confront on Exhibit Annexure P-4, therefore, he should be recalled to put up specific questions qua the said document.

¶19

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Gauhati High Court rendered in the case titled as Ajit Kumar Nath and others vs. State of Tripura reported as 2010(2) Crl. L.J. 2492.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

There is no dispute with the well settled proposition of law that

¶22

¶23

Crl. Rev. No.509 of 2012

¶24

the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C to recall a witness should be allowed in case the same is necessary for proper adjudication of the case. On the other hand, it is also a well settled proposition of law that the said witness cannot be recalled in order to fulfill the lacuna.

¶25

In the present case, it is an admitted position that PW-3 was examined at length. The fact that the counsel inadvertently could not ask one or two questions to the said witness cannot be made a ground to allow the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, in the present case, in these circumstances, the witness is being recalled only to fulfill the lacuna .

¶26

As such, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶27

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶28

13.03.2012 gurpreet

Ravi @ Kallu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi @ Kallu v. State of Haryana

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

Sultan Singh and Others Vs Kartar Singh and Others

Harmukh Vs Kishan Lal and Ors.

Punjab Wakf Board Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dalip Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Tara Wati & Ors. Vs Ganpat & Ors.

Sukhjinder Singh & Ors. Vs Chhinderjit Kaur.