'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court

S.311 CrPC not meant to "cure defects": Punjab & Haryana HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


According to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the purpose of Section 311 CrPC, which allows for the recall of important witnesses, is not to "fix faults" in the defence; as a result, the defence attorney must remain "fully aroused" throughout the cross-examination of witnesses.

The comment was made as a motion to recall two prosecution witnesses for additional cross-examination for making exculpatory remarks to them was being denied.

The justice-led panel continued by saying that the defence might present defence testimony following the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 313 of the CrPC if it so chose.

The court noted that the prayer in the instant petition is completely rudderless and, thereby, declined for the reason that the defence attorney was assisted by the accused in the proceedings, which occurred through video conferencing, after carefully weighing the opposing submissions of the parties.

The court stated that granting the authorization would have an unfavorable effect because the defense would be attempting to correct an earlier flaw.

The court dismissed the petition because it lacked merit and upheld the challenged order.

Raman Kumar

 Vs

 State of Haryana and Another

Download Judgment

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/ph-hc-pw-433083.pdf"]

Latest Legal News