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 accused was entitled to recall the complainant for cross-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a cheque dishonour prosecution.
Analysis: The application was examined against the backdrop of the accused's repeated adjournments, failure to avail opportunities for cross-examination, conduct in delaying the trial, repeated attempts to avoid coercive process by citing settlement, and non-compliance with undertakings recorded before the court. The provision under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers wide discretion, but it is to be exercised sparingly and only to meet the ends of justice. Where the application is found to be a device to prolong proceedings or to abuse the process of law, recall cannot be permitted. On the record, the request for recall was not viewed as bona fide and the earlier order refusing recall was found to be justified.
Conclusion: The application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rightly rejected and the relief was declined against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: A witness recall application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be refused where the court finds that it is not necessary for justice and is instead an abuse of process intended to delay the proceedings.