TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether evidence of police officials of a merely formal character could be tendered by affidavit under Section 296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and whether omission to put such formal evidence to the accused under Section 313 of the Code justified setting aside the conviction in revision.
Analysis: Section 296 permits evidence of a formal character to be given by affidavit and read in evidence, while preserving the right of either side to seek examination of the deponent. The object is to avoid needless summoning of witnesses whose testimony relates only to formal steps in the investigation. Where no request is made to summon such deponents, the affidavit evidence cannot be treated as inadmissible merely because cross-examination did not take place. Likewise, every item of formal evidence need not necessarily be specifically put to the accused under Section 313, particularly where the substantive incriminating material rests elsewhere and no failure of justice or prejudice is shown. A revisional court should not set aside a conviction on such a technical omission when the evidence is purely formal and the accused has not demonstrated prejudice.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in discarding the affidavit evidence or in quashing the conviction on that ground; the objection did not vitiate the proceedings and the conviction could not be set aside for the stated omission.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
