2001 (6) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es-1), Chennai, allowing the petition filed under sections 246(6) and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the respondent-complaintant. The proceedings against the petitioner-accused were initiated by way of a private, complaint. After the complaint was taken on file, the witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 5, mentioned in the complaint, were examined and thereafter, the petitioner was questioned. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondent in this revision to fill in the lacunae in the prosecution. It is the admitted case that the prosecution only examined witnesses Nos. 1 to 5 mentioned in the complaint. The prosecution did not take any steps to examine witnesses Nos. 6 to 10 at the time of trial. There is no material on record to indicate that the prosecution could not secure the presence of those witnesses during ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e judgment of the Supreme Court in Jamatraj Kewaiji Govani v. State of Maharashtra [1968] LW Crl. 65 is not helpful to the respondent as the Supreme Court held that the prosecution cannot be allowed to rebut the defence evidence unless the prisoner brings forward something suddenly and unexpectedly which is not so in their case. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rosecutor in charge of the case, had not conducted the prosecution with care. Such instances are not infrequent, but then on account of it, the accused cannot be made to suffer prejudice, by allowing the prosecution to ratify such laches by having recourse to section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In N. Lakshmanan v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board [1991] LW Crl. 475, it is pointed out that th....