advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
rajendra prasad
under Sections 242 and 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of prosecution witnesses No.1 and 2 for cross-examination.Discovery of the truth is the essential purpose of any trial or enquiry, observed a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria through LRs. 2012 (3) SCALE 550. A timely reminder of that solemn duty was given, in the following words: “What people expect is that the Court should discharge its obligation to find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying the existence of the courts of justice.” 16. We are conscious of the fact that recall of the witnesses is being directed nearly four years after they were examined in chief about an incident that is nearly seven years old. Delay takes a heavy toll on the human memory apart from breeding cynicism about the efficacy of the judicial system to decide cases within a reasonably foreseeable time period. To that extent the apprehension expressed by Mr. Rawal, that the prosecution may suffer prejudice on account of a belated recall, may not be wholly without any basis. Having said that, we are of the opinion that on a parity of reasoning and looking to the consequences of denial of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, we would prefer to err in favour of the appellant getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against a possible prejudice at his cost. Fairness of the trial is a virtue that is sacrosanct in our judicial system and no price is too heavy to protect that virtue. A possible prejudice to prosecution is not even a price, leave alone one that would justify denial of a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself. 17. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the orders passed by the Trial Court as also the High Court and direct that the prosecution witnesses No.1 and 2 shall be recalled by the Trial Court and an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses afforded to the appellant. In fairness to the counsel for the appellant, we must record that he assured us that given an opportunity to examine the witnesses the needful shall be done on two dates of hearing, one each for each witness without causing any un-necessary delay or procrastination. The Trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the examination of the two witnesses expeditiously and without unnecessary delay.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 874-875 OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) Nos.4286-87 OF 2011) P. Sanjeeva Rao …Appellant Versus The State of A.P. …Respondent J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise … Continue reading
scope and interpretation of sec.145[2] of N.I.Act=whether the petitioners/accused were not entitled to cross examine the complainant as regard to the entire facts contained in the affidavit of evidence of the complainant or their (petitioners‟) right of such a cross examination of the witness of the affidavit was limited to certain facts or their defences=In view of my above discussion, the impugned orders are modified to the extent that the cross examination of the complainant would not remain limited to the contents of Para 4 and 6 of the applications of the complainant, but shall also extend to the facts in addition to their defences, as may be deemed and essential by the learned Magistrate relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view the object and scheme of the Act and particularly, provisions of Sections 139, 143 of the Act and Section 106 of Evidence Act.
Crl.M.Cs.3089/2011 & 3090/2011 Page 1 of 9 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 02.01.2012 Pronounced on: 11.01.2012 + CRL.M.C. NO. 3089/2011 M/S. SUKHDATA CHITS PVT. LTD. & ORS. …… Petitioner Through: Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Advocate Versus SHRI RAJENDER PRASAD GUPTA …… Respondent Through: WITH CRL.M.C. NO. 3090/2011 PREM KUMAR … Continue reading
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 9-Application for interim measures by court-Unregistered partnership firm in liquor trade-Application by one of the partners for appointment of receiver to take charge of business of the firm-Trial court dismissing the application on the ground that name of the applicant does not figure in the register of firms as partner of the firm-High Court allowed the application holding that s.69(3) of the Partnership Act is not attracted to an application u/s 9 of the Act-High Court further directed that the partners who were running the business would run the business as receivers till 31.12..2003 and from 1.1.2004 to 31.3.2004 the applicant and two other partners of his group would run the business as receivers s.9-Unregistered partnership firm-Application by one of the partners for directions to appoint receiver-Maintainability of- s. 9- “party “-Invoking s. 9-An application u/s. 9 is not a suit- ‘Parity’ is defined in s. 2(1 )(h) to mean a party to an arbitration agreement-So right conferred by s.9 is on a party to an arbitration agreement-Right conferred by s. 9 cannot be said to be one arising out of a contract-Filing of an application u/s 9 by a party by virtue of its being a party to.an arbitration agreement is for securing a relief which the court has power to grant before, during, or after arbitral proceedings by virtue of s.9 of the Act-The relief sought for in an application u/s 9 is neither in a suit nor a right arising from a contract-Party invoking s.9 may not have actually commenced arbitral proceedings but must be able to satisfy the court that the arbitral proceedings are actually contemplated or manifestly intended. =2004 AIR 1433, 2004(1 )SCR404 , 2004(3 )SCC155 , 2004(1 )SCALE297 , 2004(2 )JT352 =Held, order passed by court should fall within the meaning of expression ‘an interim measure of protection’ as distinguished from an alt time of permanent protection-It is a serious matter to appoint a receiver on a running business-This is not a case of oppression of minority by majority-A better course would have been to allow the conduct of the business continuing in the hands of the persons who were doing so but at the same time issuing such directions and/or devising such arrangement as would protect and take care of the interest of those who are not actually running the business-Purpose of enacting s. 9 is to provide ‘interim measures of protection’-Though order of High Court appointing a receiver on the partnership business is maintained, the rest of the order is set aside- Directions given inter alia, for running the business by the group of partners who were running it prior to interim order of High Court under their control but as receivers, and for appointment of an official as observer- Interim order-Partnership Act, I932-s.69(3). Held, Court u/s 9 is only formulating interim measures so as to protect the right under adjudication before the arbitral tribunal from being frustrated-Prima facie, the bar enacted by s. 69 of Partnership Act does not affect the maintainability of an application under s.9 of the Act-s. 69 of Partnership Act has no bearing on the right of a party to an arbitration clause to file an application under s.9 of the Act. M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Ms. NEPC India Ltd, AIR 1999 SC 565, relied on. Kamal Pushpa Enterprises v. DR Construction Company, AIR (2000) SC 2676; Jagdish Chandra v. Kajaria Traders (Ind.) Ltd., AIR (1964) SC 1882 and Delhi Development Authority v. Kochhar Construction Work and Anr., [1998] 8 SCC 559, referred to. M/s. Shreeram Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Yasin Khan and Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 476, cited. Words and phrases: Word ‘before’ in s. 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Connotation of. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 132 and 131 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2003 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.A. No.2484 of 2003. Harish N. Salve, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Kapil Sibaii, P. Chidambaram, R.F. Nariman, Vivek Tankha, Rohit Arya, C. Mukhopadhyaii, Manu Nair, Ms. Shalini, Rakesh K. Khanna, Aseem Mehrotra, Kanahaya Singh, Rajeev Singh, Rajesh Prasad Singh, Akshay Arora, P.K. Bansal, Pankaj Kr. Singh, K.L. Janjani and Ms. Abha R. Sharma for the appearing parties.
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 131-132 of 2004 PETITIONER: FIRM ASHOK TRADERS AND ANR. ETC. RESPONDENT: GURUMUKH DAS SALUJA AND ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/2004 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2004(1)SCR 404 The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted in both the SLPs. The dispute is among 12 … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 