MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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