The High Court dismissed criminal petitions filed to quash orders rejecting an application for recall of a prosecution witness and reopening of the case solely on the ground of change of counsel.
The Criminal Petitions seeking quashing of orders rejecting recall of witness and reopening of case were dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1513, 1516, 1525 AND 1529 OF 2017 COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are filed requesting to quash the orders, dated 30.01.2017, passed in Crl.MP.Nos.260 and 261 of 2017 in C.C.No.266 of 2013 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, Krishna District and Crl.MP.Nos.262 and 263 of 2017 in C.C.No.268 of 2013 on the file of very same Magistrate.
petitioner/accused in all the Criminal Petitions, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh.
examination of PW.1. Now, it is well settled that change of Advocate by a party is no ground to grant such a relief. I am fortified by the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar and others1 .
___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J
February 27, 2017. MD
1 (2016) 8 SCC 762
2 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissal of a request to recall a witness for further cross-examination due to change of counsel warrants interference when dismissed petitions are not patently illegal.
Whether an order dismissing an application for reopening of inquiry and recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., based on lack of substantive plea and settled law, attracts criminal revision juris
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar and othersReferred¶7
State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar and others (2016) 8 SCC 762 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner-Accused
State of Andhra Pradesh
A. Shankar Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
