9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sses on behalf of the prosecution had been examined. Complainant closed her case. A date was fixed for examination of the defence witness and argument on 10.04.2006. However, the appellant filed an application for cross-examination of the complainant herself which was rejected. A revision application was filed there against in the Court of the Sessions Judge. In the said revision application, no order of stay was passed. Whereas the appellant had continuously remained present before the Trial Judge, the complainant remained absent. 4. On or about 18.04.2006, the appellant filed an application for his acquittal on the ground of absence of the complainant. By an order dated 24.04.2006, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... client to appear on the dates of hearing, more so when an accused had been appearing in person and remained present in court for all the days of hearing. In any event, it was urged, the High Court committed a serious error in disposing of the appeal only upon hearing a legal aid counsel and even the submissions made by him had not been noticed. 8. Mr. A. Regunathan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submitted that in view of the fact that the matter was adjourned for examination of DWs, the learned Magistrate could not have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with trial of summons cases by Magistrates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined on behalf of the defence. 12. The accused was entitled to file an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such an application was required to be considered and disposed of by the learned Magistrate. We have noticed hereinbefore that the complainant did not examine herself as a witness. She was sought to be summoned again for cross-examination. The said prayer has not yet been allowed. But, that would not mean that on that ground the court would exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at that stage or the defence would not examine his witnesses. 13. Presence of the complainant or her lawyer would have been necessary, as indicated hereinbefore, only for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
