Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the prosecution can be confined to the witnesses examined at the stage of pre-charge evidence and whether the accused court could restrict the complainant from examining additional witnesses after framing of charge.
Analysis: In a complaint case tried as a warrant case otherwise than on a police report, the scheme of Sections 244 to 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shows that the prosecution is to lead evidence at the pre-charge stage, but the law does not compel exhaustion of all prosecution evidence before charge. Section 246(1) permits framing of charge at any previous stage, and Section 246(6) specifically contemplates the evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses being taken thereafter. The prosecution, therefore, is not limited to the witnesses already examined before charge and may supplement its evidence with remaining witnesses after charge.
Conclusion: The restriction on the prosecution was unsustainable and the accused court's order was set aside. The petitioner was entitled to examine the additional witnesses after charge.
Ratio Decidendi: In a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, prosecution evidence is not confined to the pre-charge stage and the remaining witnesses may be examined after charge under Section 246(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.