Live
- Educational Trips in South Kanara Put on Hold Following Murudeshwar Drowning Incident
- Karnataka Temple Embraces Mechanical Elephant for Cruelty-Free Ceremonies
- Temple modelled after Ram Mandir to be constructed in US
- Property dealer shot dead in broad daylight in Ranchi
- Maharashtra: CM Fadnavis expands Cabinet; inducts 39 ministers
- Winter Session of UP Assembly from Dec 16; CM seeks cooperation of all parties
- AIADMK executive council meet passes sixteen resolutions, vows to make Edappadi CM again
- Manchu Family Feud Resurfaces in Jalpally
- Kerala Hindu leader gifts Rig Veda to Pope Francis
- 35 miners trapped under rubble in Afghanistan
Court can summon witnesses under 311 of CrPC
Justice M S K Jaiswal ruled that allowing a petition for correction under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code was to examine whether there would be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing valuable evidence on record.
Justice M S K Jaiswal ruled that allowing a petition for correction under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code was to examine whether there would be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing valuable evidence on record.
The judge clarified that the exercise of the power was not only for cases for the benefit of the accused. “It will not be improper to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case for the prosecution and not that of the accused.
The judge further clarified that it was a provision empowering the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of the proceedings. The judge was dealing with two criminal revisions filed by K RAwindra Reddy. He had filed two criminal cases of cheque bouncing against Inkey Infra Projects and one B Pitchi Reddy.
In the course of examining the witnesses in two cases the cheque numbers were wrongly stated in the evidence requiring for calling the witness back for examination.
When the criminal court rejected the application, the complainant filed the present revision petitions. The judge allowed both the criminal petitions and declared that the Magistrate erred in rejecting the application of the complainant.
