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 order directing summoning of bank record and the bank official under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified and liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers wide power on the Court to summon, examine, or recall any person at any stage of inquiry, trial, or proceeding, and the provision becomes mandatory where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The controversy concerned whether the credited amount of Rs. 3 lakhs had moved from the complainant's account to the accused's account, and the bank record and testimony of the bank official were found relevant to resolve that question. The order was treated as a reasoned exercise of discretion aimed at securing a just adjudication, and the challenge that it was only to fill lacunae was rejected.
Conclusion: The summoning order was valid and did not warrant interference. The petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A Court may summon relevant evidence at any stage under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and must do so where the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case, even if the proceeding is at an advanced stage.