| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/496132 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Decided On | Dec-29-2000 |
| Case Number | Criminal Revision No. 68/2000 |
| Judge | Mr. R.S. Garg, J. |
| Reported in | 2001(2)MPHT55(CG) |
| Acts | Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311 |
| Appellant | Rajju @ Bolo |
| Respondent | State of Chhattisgarh |
| Appellant Advocate | Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv. |
| Disposition | Criminal revision allowed |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]- - 2. from the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to ms. the trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]orderr.s. garg, j.1. it appears that one m.s. chauhan, assistant sub-inspector was examined in the court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of shri m.s. chauhan. the applicant submitted before the trial court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant chhatrapal and m.s. chauhan said m.s. chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. the said application has been rejected by the lower court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.2. from the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to ms. chauhan could never be put to him on.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]ORDERCode Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petition is allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
R.S. Garg, J.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petition is allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petition is allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petition is allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petition is allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petition is allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. The petition is allowed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petition is allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. Criminal Revision allowed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R.S. Garg, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajju Bolo Vs State of Chhattisgarh - Citation 496132 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '496132', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 311', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 68/2000', 'appellant' => 'Rajju @ Bolo', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Rajju @ Bolo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 'casenote' => ' - - 2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' Shri H.B. Agrawal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.', 'court' => 'Chhattisgarh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2000-12-29', 'deposition' => 'Criminal revision allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Mr. R.S. Garg, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.</p><p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p><p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.</p><p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.</p><p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.</p><p>5. The petition is allowed.</p><p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2001(2)MPHT55(CG)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Chhattisgarh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $args = array( (int) 0 => '496132', (int) 1 => 'rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/496132/rajju-bolo-vs-state-chhattisgarh' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R.S. Garg, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. It appears that one M.S. Chauhan, Assistant Sub-Inspector was examined in the Court on 23-1-1992 while the original complainant was examined in the Court on 21-4-1997 ie., almost after five years of examination of Shri M.S. Chauhan. The applicant submitted before the Trial Court that in view of certain contradictions emerging in the statements of the original complainant Chhatrapal and M.S. Chauhan said M.S. Chauhan be recalled and applicant be permitted to recross examine. The said application has been rejected by the Lower Court simply on the ground that the present applicant had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. From the records it clearly appears that certain questions which are required to be put to MS. Chauhan could never be put to him on 23-1-1992. The applicant/accused did not know as to what the original complainant Chhatrapal was going to state in the Court.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The questions proposed by the present applicant for further cross-examination of said M.S. Chauhan, cannot be said to be absurd or irrelevant, in fact questions are required to be put to him to clarify the ambiguities which have crept in the records.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application without appreciating that the questions proposed to be put to the witnesses after his recall could not be put to him on the earlier occasion. The Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has committed such illegality which has affected its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Trial Court deserves to and is accordingly set-aside. The Trial Court is hereby directed to recall the said M.S. Chauhan as witness for his further cross-examination.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The petition is allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Criminal Revision allowed.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109