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 the Court should interfere with the order refusing to recall PW.1, receive additional documents and reopen the case when the matter had already been heard and was posted for judgment.
Analysis: The petition was filed at a highly belated stage after the complainant's evidence had been closed, the accused had been examined under Section 313, arguments had been heard and the case was posted for judgment. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers recall or re-examination only where the Court is satisfied that such evidence is necessary, but that power cannot be used casually or to reopen a completed trial without a satisfactory explanation for the earlier omission. The proposed documents related to a period prior to the execution of the power of attorney in favour of PW.1, and PW.1 was not shown to be competent to speak about them. The Court also held that once the hearing is complete and the matter is awaiting judgment, reopening the evidence is not warranted.
Conclusion: The refusal to recall PW.1, receive the documents and reopen the case was upheld, and the petitions were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: After completion of trial and posting of a criminal case for judgment, the Court will not ordinarily reopen evidence or recall a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless the evidence is shown to be necessary for a just decision and the applicant offers a satisfactory basis for the belated request.