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 restores Sessions Judge's order, emphasizing truth-seeking duty in criminal cases.</h1> <h3>U.T. of Dadra and Haveli and Ors. Versus Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment and restoring the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The Court held ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of summoning a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C.2. Whether summoning the Collector amounts to filling in a lacuna in the prosecution case.3. Consideration of the plea of alibi raised by the respondent.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of summoning a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C.:The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers a very wide power on the Court to summon any person as a witness or to recall and re-examine any person already examined at any stage of any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The Section mandates that the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The Court cited several precedents, including *Ram Jeet and Ors. v. The State* and *State of West Bengal v. Tulsidas Mundhra*, to illustrate that the provision is mandatory when the evidence is essential for a just decision. The Court concluded that the learned Sessions Judge was within his rights to summon the Collector, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, as his evidence was deemed necessary to find out the truth.2. Whether summoning the Collector amounts to filling in a lacuna in the prosecution case:The Supreme Court clarified that filling in a lacuna should not be confused with rectifying an oversight. The Court referred to *Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell* and *P. Chhaganlal Daga v. M. Sanjay Shaw* to assert that allowing the prosecution to summon a witness to rectify an inadvertent oversight does not equate to filling in a lacuna. The Court noted that the prosecution might not anticipate the defense's strategy and thus may not initially present evidence to counter it. The Court held that the learned Sessions Judge's decision to summon the Collector was not an attempt to fill in a lacuna but a necessary step to ensure a fair trial and just decision.3. Consideration of the plea of alibi raised by the respondent:The respondent had raised a plea of alibi, claiming he was present in the chamber of the Collector at the time of the incident. The respondent had examined two witnesses to support this claim. The Supreme Court observed that the evidence of the then Collector might support the respondent's defense. The Court concluded that the learned Sessions Judge rightly decided to summon the Collector to verify the alibi, as it was crucial for determining the truth. The Court emphasized that summoning the Collector would not prejudice the respondent since he had himself raised the alibi defense.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment and restoring the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The Court held that summoning the Collector was essential for a just and fair decision and did not amount to filling in a lacuna in the prosecution case. The decision reinforced the principle that the primary duty of a criminal court is to find out the truth and ensure justice is done.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
