TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Allows Appeals, Orders Recall of Prosecution Witnesses for Cross-Examination</h1> <h3>P. SANJEEVA RAO Versus STATE OF A.P.</h3> P. SANJEEVA RAO Versus STATE OF A.P. - 2012 AIR 2242, 2012 (6) SCR 787, 2012 (7) SCC 56, 2012 (6) JT 3, 2012 (6) SCALE 9 Issues Involved:1. Recall of Prosecution Witnesses for Cross-Examination2. Deferring Cross-Examination of Investigating Officer3. Fair Trial and Opportunity to DefendDetailed Analysis:Recall of Prosecution Witnesses for Cross-ExaminationThe appellant, prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sought to recall prosecution witnesses (PWs) 1 and 2 for cross-examination. The Trial Court had dismissed this request, noting that the cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2 was recorded as 'nil' and there was no indication that the appellant had reserved the right to cross-examine them later. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the witnesses had been examined years earlier and recalling them would prejudice the prosecution. The Supreme Court, however, found that the counsel for the appellant had a bona fide belief that cross-examination could occur after the Trap Laying Officer (PW 11) was examined. The Court cited the essential rule of justice that unchallenged evidence must be accepted and emphasized the importance of cross-examination in testing the credibility of witnesses. The Court decided that the appellant should be given the opportunity to cross-examine PWs 1 and 2 to avoid a miscarriage of justice.Deferring Cross-Examination of Investigating OfficerThe appellant also requested to defer the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (PW 12) until after PWs 1 and 2 were cross-examined. The Trial Court dismissed this request, and the High Court affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court noted that no formal application or oral prayer was made to reserve the right to cross-examine PWs 1 and 2. Despite this procedural lapse, the Supreme Court found the counsel's affidavit credible, indicating a genuine intention to cross-examine the witnesses after the Trap Laying Officer's testimony. The Court highlighted the need to rectify any inadvertent errors to ensure a fair trial, as emphasized in previous judgments like Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell.Fair Trial and Opportunity to DefendThe Supreme Court underscored the principle that a fair trial is paramount, and the accused must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. The Court referred to its previous rulings, which stressed the importance of discovering the truth and ensuring justice. It emphasized that the power to recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is broad and should be exercised judiciously to prevent any failure of justice. The Court acknowledged the potential prejudice to the prosecution due to the delay but prioritized the appellant's right to a fair trial. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, directing the Trial Court to recall PWs 1 and 2 for cross-examination, ensuring the process is conducted expeditiously.ConclusionThe Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeals, setting aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court. It directed that PWs 1 and 2 be recalled for cross-examination, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and the opportunity for the appellant to defend himself adequately. The parties were instructed to appear before the Trial Court on a specified date to facilitate the cross-examination without unnecessary delay.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
