HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
S K GARG
Click here to view full judgement.
PRAFULLA C.PANT, J. -
(1.) HEARD .
(2.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 14.2.2012, passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI) at Dehradun in Case No. 3 of 2003, CBI v. Chandra Dutt and Ors.,. whereby said Court has rejected the application of the
revisionist under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court on the. application moved under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. is erroneous in law.
(3.) SECTION 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon or examine any person in attendance
or to recall or re-examine any person, already
examined, if his evidence is essential to the just
decision of the case. I agree with the learned
Counsel for the revisionist only to the extent
that the trial Court has power to recall or reexamine a witness, already examined, but this
Court is of the view that the power to recall the
examined witness is not to be exercised lightly,
or in a routine manner. If the power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is examined lightly, this
would encourage winning over of the witnesses
and frustrate the object of fair trial.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.