The Supreme Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the Family Court's rejection of an interim application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The court found no improper exercise of jurisdiction as the applicant failed to explain the delay in summoning documents at the fag end of the trial.
The revision petition is 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.
CRL.REV.P. NO.17/2017
BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI
Present: For the petitioner : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. S. Deb, Advocate. 27.07.2017.
Heard Mr. B.N. Majumder, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Deb, the learned counsel for the respondent.
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc. Case No.387 of 2015 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning some documents.
I have carefully gone through the application of the petitioner for production of the documents, which is at Annexure-B to the revision petition and examination thereof will demonstrate that no satisfactory explanation for the delay in invoking Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning those documents at the fag end of the trial, i.e. at the stage of argument is given.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any improper exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court.
Consequently, this revision petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Pulak
CRL.REV.P. NO.17/2017
Page 1 of 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed an improper exercise of jurisdiction in rejecting the applicant's application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning documents due to late filing at the stage of argu
Whether the petitioner has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in invoking Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning documents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
T. Vaiphei
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
