9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Dismissal of application under Section 311 of Cr. P.C. for recalling witnesses for cross-examination and examination of new witnesses. Analysis: The petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr. P.C. to recall a witness for cross-examination and examine new witnesses, which was dismissed by the ACMM. The ACMM reasoned that the case dated back to 1987, with charges framed in 2003 and sufficient opportunities given for post-charge evidence until 2006. The prosecution evidence was closed in 2006, and the statement of accused persons was recorded in 2010. The ACMM found the application filed in 2010 to be belated, potentially leading to the persecution of accused persons if further evidence was allowed. The ACMM highlighted that one witness was not even listed, questioning the relevance of the new witnesses requested. The ACMM dismissed the application based on the stage of the case and the potential reopening of the case, leading to undue delay and persecution of the accused. The petitioner argued that recalling the witness for cross-examination and examining new witnesses was crucial for a just decision. The Court acknowledged the power under Section 311 of Cr. P.C. to recall or summon witnesses even after evidence is closed, emphasizing that this discretion must be judiciously exercised. The Court noted that the case had been ongoing for over 24 years at the trial stage, criticizing the department's lethargic approach. The Court found no sufficient reason for the delay in filing the petition challenging the impugned order, questioning the necessity of examining the new witnesses at such a belated stage. The Court also questioned the relevance of examining certain witnesses, emphasizing that the exercise of judicial discretion should not prolong trials indefinitely. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need to end trials conducted with a condemnable lethargic attitude and highlighting the importance of exercising judicial discretion judiciously.
|
