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>Court orders direct witness examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C, setting aside Advocate Commissioner appointment.</h1> <h3>Pankajam Ramaswamy Versus M.R. Elangovan</h3> The Court allowed the examination of the complainant as a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C, noting her willingness to give evidence. The order appointing ... - Issues involved: Revision against order allowing examination of complainant as a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C and appointment of Commissioner under Section 284 Cr.P.C.Issue 1: Examination of complainant as a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.CThe revision petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C to summon the complainant for examination, which was allowed by the trial Court. The complainant, a 71-year-old lady with health issues, requested to be examined at her residence. The Sessions Judge set aside the order, leading to the present revision. The petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge reversed the order without sufficient reasons, while the respondent claimed the complainant only sought examination after realizing she could not avoid it. The Court noted that the complainant was now willing to give evidence and could do so by filing a proof affidavit under Section 139 of the Act.Issue 2: Appointment of Commissioner under Section 284 Cr.P.CThe trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the complainant's evidence based on medical reasons. The Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate lacked power to appoint an Advocate Commissioner under Section 284 Cr.P.C. The Court observed that while the appointment of a Commissioner should be sparingly resorted to in criminal cases, considering the complainant's health condition, it was appropriate in this instance. However, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was found impermissible under the law. The Court directed the Magistrate to personally go to the complainant's residence in Anna Nagar, Chennai, to record her evidence, setting aside the Sessions Judge's order.This judgment clarifies the permissible procedures for examining witnesses and appointing Commissioners in criminal cases under Sections 311, 284, 285, and 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code, ensuring a fair trial while accommodating the health needs of the parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
