Abdul Rehman Vs. State

Abdul Rehman vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 01, 2011

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920461

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/920461
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Mahesh Bhagwati, J.
Decided On: Jul 01, 2011
Case Number: Case No. CRLMP 368 of 2006
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 311, 482; Evidence Act - Section 165

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Rehman

Advocate Mr. Mukesh Saini, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Adv

Legal References

Acts: Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 311, 482; Evidence Act - Section 165

Excerpt

.....311 cr pc, power has been given to the court to examine, or re-examine any person as a witness, if that court considers it necessary to do so for the just decision of the case. if this section is read with section 165 of evidence act, it would be clear that the power under section 311 of the criminal procedure code and section 165 of the evidence act is conferred on the court and not on the parties and, therefore, it is the court alone which can exercise the powers under section 311 of the cr pc if the court is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for the just decision of the case. the examination and re-examination which is contemplated by section 311 of the cr pc and section 165 of the evidence act is to be made by the court and not by the parties. viewed in this light, if the power under section 311 of the cr pc, 1973 is used by the court for the purpose of enabling any party to examine or re-examine the witness, it would be impermissible to do so. of course, the court has unfetted powers to examine and re-examine any witness under section 311 of the cr pc at any time in any inquiry or trial. 4. so far as the question of summoning any other witness is concerned, that power is required to be exercised under section 311 of cr pc by the court itself, but the witness cannot be summoned under section 311 of cr pc at the request of any of the parties. 5. in view of the above back-drop, the learned trial court and the learned revisional court are found to have committed material illegality at the time of passing the impugned orders. hence the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below deserve to be set-aside and the criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner needs to be allowed. 6. for the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner under section 482 of cr pc stands allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below stand set-aside.

Full Judgment

1. Challenge in this Criminal Misc. Petition is to the order dated 9th January, 2006 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 10th November, 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawai Madhopur, allowing the application under Section 311 of Cr PC and summoning Babu Lal S/o Kajod as a witness, has been affirmed.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that on account of death of PW-5 Smt. Nanni Begum, the complainant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr PC imploring the court to summon witness Babu Lal to prove certain documents as PW-5 Smt. Nanni Begum had expired. The learned trial court allowed the application and ordered to summon the witness Babu Lal in place of Nanni Begum.

3. A perusal of Section 311 makes it clear that under Section 311 Cr PC, power has been given to the Court to examine, or re-examine any person as a witness, if that Court considers it necessary to do so for the just decision of the case. If this Section is read with Section 165 of Evidence Act, it would be clear that the power under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act is conferred on the Court and not on the parties and, therefore, it is the Court alone which can exercise the powers under section 311 of the Cr PC if the Court is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for the just decision of the case. The examination and re-examination which is contemplated by Section 311 of the Cr PC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act is to be made by the Court and not by the parties. Viewed in this light, if the power under Section 311 of the Cr PC, 1973 is used by the Court for the purpose of enabling any party to examine or re-examine the witness, it would be impermissible to do so. Of course, the Court has unfetted powers to examine and re-examine any witness under Section 311 of the Cr PC at any time in any inquiry or trial.

4. So far as the question of summoning any other witness is concerned, that power is required to be exercised under Section 311 of Cr PC by the Court itself, but the witness cannot be summoned under Section 311 of Cr PC at the request of any of the parties.

5. In view of the above back-drop, the learned trial court and the learned revisional court are found to have committed material illegality at the time of passing the impugned orders. Hence the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below deserve to be set-aside and the criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner needs to be allowed.

6. For the reasons stated above, the Criminal Misc. Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr PC stands allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below stand set-aside.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2011 Same Parties Abdul Rehman vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Mahesh Bhagwati, J. Acts & Sections Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 311, 482; Evidenc...