2010 (9) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... December, 1990. 2. After recording of the evidence, when the matter was fixed for final arguments, an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was filed on behalf of Department of Customs for recording of further testimony of PW-2, Mr.Rajiv Kumar Kumra. This application was allowed vide order dated 10th April, 2007 and the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s stated that Department of Customs is not at fault and the trial court should have issued notice/warrants for his appearance. 5. Copy of the application under Section 311 of the Code has been furnished by the counsel for petitioner and has been placed on record. In the said application it was stated that PW-2, Rajiv Kumar Kumra had appeared and his statement was partly recorded but his evidenc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-2, Mr.Rajiv Kumar Kumra was an employee of Department of Customs but on deputation. Thus the Department of Customs was in touch and aware about presence of Mr. Rajiv Kumar Kumra. It appears that a short date was given to enable the petitioner, Department of Customs, to produce PW-2, Mr.Rajiv Kumar Kumra before court for recording his testimony on 18th April, 2007. Contention now raised by the ....