Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India

Decided On : Dec-13-2006

Court : Orissa

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
			(int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 13(2',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 311'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'L. Mohapatra',
			(int) 1 => 'J.1',
			(int) 2 => 'S.K. Padhi',
			(int) 3 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 4 => 'Chandra Mohapatra v.',
			(int) 5 => 'Panchanan Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Bag v. Mohanial Jain'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'C.B.I.',
			(int) 2 => 'T.R.',
			(int) 3 => 'C.B.I.',
			(int) 4 => 'C.B.I.',
			(int) 5 => 'C.B.I.',
			(int) 6 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 7 => 'Kishore'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '14.11.2006',
			(int) 1 => '2002',
			(int) 2 => '14.11.2006',
			(int) 3 => 'between 2003 to 2006',
			(int) 4 => '14.11.2006',
			(int) 5 => '2003',
			(int) 6 => '2004',
			(int) 7 => '2006',
			(int) 8 => 'almost three years',
			(int) 9 => '1995',
			(int) 10 => '1996',
			(int) 11 => 'years'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Bhubaneswar',
			(int) 1 => 'Court',
			(int) 2 => 'Shri Padhi',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 5 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 6 => 'Court',
			(int) 7 => 'Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Reliance',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'O.C.R.',
			(int) 15 => 'Court',
			(int) 16 => 'Court',
			(int) 17 => 'Court',
			(int) 18 => 'Court',
			(int) 19 => 'Court',
			(int) 20 => 'CRLMC'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '24',
			(int) 1 => '1 to 11',
			(int) 2 => '11',
			(int) 3 => '1 to 11',
			(int) 4 => '2',
			(int) 5 => '9',
			(int) 6 => '10 and 11',
			(int) 7 => '9',
			(int) 8 => '10 and 11',
			(int) 9 => '120',
			(int) 10 => '34',
			(int) 11 => '13(1)(d',
			(int) 12 => '1 to 11',
			(int) 13 => '1 to 11',
			(int) 14 => '8)',
			(int) 15 => '241',
			(int) 16 => '3',
			(int) 17 => '11',
			(int) 18 => '531'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 1 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 2 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 3 => 'P.Ws'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.W. 12'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536214',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Thomas Kujur',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  1 to 11 for further cross-examination on the ground that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined on fact as well as legal aspect. 531. In the said case, the Court again held that a witness can be recalled at any stage if the Court is satisfied that the same is essential or needed for just decision in the case.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Chairman Bag v. Mohanial Jain;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-12-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' L. Mohapatra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Mohapatra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 24 of 2002 rejecting the application to recall P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On 14.11.2006 P.W.12 was examined. On the said date an application was filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court to recall the P.Ws.1 to 11 for further cross-examination on the ground that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined on fact as well as legal aspect. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner further cross-examination of the said witnesses is required for a fair trial and to ensure justice. The effective adjudication of the case can only be made if the said witnesses are recalled for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The aforesaid petition was opposed by the C.B.I. Shri S.K. Padhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that these witnesses were examined in between 2003 to 2006 and at no point of time, effort was made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to recall the said witnesses for cross-examination. It was submitted by Shri Padhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. that with the change of lawyer on behalf of the petitioner, the witnesses should not be recalled for further cross-examination, unless the petitioner makes out a case deserving an order for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. From the impugned order, it appears that an application was filed on 14.11.2006 to recall P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination only on the ground that they have not been cross-examined with regard to fact and legal aspect of the case and in order to have a fair trial and to ensure justice, the said witnesses should be recalled for further cross-examination. It appears that no other ground has been taken in the petition to recall the said witnesses. Unless acceptable grounds are mentioned in the petition to recall the witnesses, it will not be possible on the part of any Court to find out as to whether recalling the said witnesses for further cross-examination is necessary for the purpose of trial or not. Merely because these witnesses were not cross-examined properly by the previous counsel, should not be a ground for recalling the said witnesses for further cross-examination at the instance of a newly engaged counsel and in the process drag the trial. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and cross-examined in 2003, P.Ws.3 to 9 were examined and cross-examined in 2004 and P.Ws. 10 and 11 were examined and cross-examined in 2006. It is evident from the dates of their examination and cross-examination that no steps were taken by the petitioner to recall at least P.Ws.1 to 9 for almost three years for the purpose of further cross-examination. P.Ws. 10 and 11 were examined recently but no acceptable ground has been taken in the petition to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination. As a matter of fact, I find from the deposition copies that some cross-examination has been made on behalf of the accused person. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence under Sections 120-B/420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such type of cases mostly depend on the documents and the witnesses are examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the documents. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for r ailing the P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. So far as P.W.12 is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that unless P.Ws. 1 to 11 are recalled for further examination, cross-examination of P.W. 12 will not be much of relevance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Kishore Chandra Mohapatra v. Panchanan Singh and Ors. reported in 1995 (8) OCR 241. The Court in the said decision observed that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives very wide powers to all Courts at any stage in any proceeding to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be necessary for a just decision of the case. In the aforesaid case after examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, an application was filed to recall the said witnesses for further examination on the ground that they had not been properly cross-examined relating to commission of offences and, therefore further cross-examination is necessary. The trial Court having allowed the petition, the said order was challenged before this Court. Considering the reasons indicated by the trial Court in recalling the said witnesses for further examination, this Court did not interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Chairman Bag v. Mohanial Jain reported in 1996 (11) O.C.R. 531. In the said case, the Court again held that a witness can be recalled at any stage if the Court is satisfied that the same is essential or needed for just decision in the case. On the facts of the case, the Court allowed application and directed recalling the complainant for further cross-examination. There is no dispute that the Court has wide powers to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination in order to impart justice to the parties. But at the same time, the Court cannot also overlook the fact that there may be cases where further cross-examination is unnecessary or recalling the witnesses may result in lingering the proceeding for indefinite period. Here is a case where steps were never taken for recalling the witnesses for years and only with change of counsel, the petition had been filed to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination. Change of lawyer can never be a ground for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination. Apart from the above, in the application filed to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination no reasons have been assigned except that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined properly on facts and law. As observed earlier, such type of cases mostly depend on the documents and witnesses are only examined to prove the documents. Under these circumstances, I am of the view of that there is no need to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(1)OLR169',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Republic of India',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536214'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
		(int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 13(2',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 311'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'L. Mohapatra',
		(int) 1 => 'J.1',
		(int) 2 => 'S.K. Padhi',
		(int) 3 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 4 => 'Chandra Mohapatra v.',
		(int) 5 => 'Panchanan Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Bag v. Mohanial Jain'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'C.B.I.',
		(int) 2 => 'T.R.',
		(int) 3 => 'C.B.I.',
		(int) 4 => 'C.B.I.',
		(int) 5 => 'C.B.I.',
		(int) 6 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 7 => 'Kishore'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '14.11.2006',
		(int) 1 => '2002',
		(int) 2 => '14.11.2006',
		(int) 3 => 'between 2003 to 2006',
		(int) 4 => '14.11.2006',
		(int) 5 => '2003',
		(int) 6 => '2004',
		(int) 7 => '2006',
		(int) 8 => 'almost three years',
		(int) 9 => '1995',
		(int) 10 => '1996',
		(int) 11 => 'years'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Bhubaneswar',
		(int) 1 => 'Court',
		(int) 2 => 'Shri Padhi',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 5 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 6 => 'Court',
		(int) 7 => 'Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Reliance',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'O.C.R.',
		(int) 15 => 'Court',
		(int) 16 => 'Court',
		(int) 17 => 'Court',
		(int) 18 => 'Court',
		(int) 19 => 'Court',
		(int) 20 => 'CRLMC'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '24',
		(int) 1 => '1 to 11',
		(int) 2 => '11',
		(int) 3 => '1 to 11',
		(int) 4 => '2',
		(int) 5 => '9',
		(int) 6 => '10 and 11',
		(int) 7 => '9',
		(int) 8 => '10 and 11',
		(int) 9 => '120',
		(int) 10 => '34',
		(int) 11 => '13(1)(d',
		(int) 12 => '1 to 11',
		(int) 13 => '1 to 11',
		(int) 14 => '8)',
		(int) 15 => '241',
		(int) 16 => '3',
		(int) 17 => '11',
		(int) 18 => '531'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 1 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 2 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 3 => 'P.Ws'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.W. 12'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536214',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Thomas Kujur',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  1 to 11 for further cross-examination on the ground that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined on fact as well as legal aspect. 531. In the said case, the Court again held that a witness can be recalled at any stage if the Court is satisfied that the same is essential or needed for just decision in the case.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Chairman Bag v. Mohanial Jain;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-12-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' L. Mohapatra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Mohapatra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 24 of 2002 rejecting the application to recall P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On 14.11.2006 P.W.12 was examined. On the said date an application was filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court to recall the P.Ws.1 to 11 for further cross-examination on the ground that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined on fact as well as legal aspect. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner further cross-examination of the said witnesses is required for a fair trial and to ensure justice. The effective adjudication of the case can only be made if the said witnesses are recalled for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The aforesaid petition was opposed by the C.B.I. Shri S.K. Padhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that these witnesses were examined in between 2003 to 2006 and at no point of time, effort was made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to recall the said witnesses for cross-examination. It was submitted by Shri Padhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. that with the change of lawyer on behalf of the petitioner, the witnesses should not be recalled for further cross-examination, unless the petitioner makes out a case deserving an order for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. From the impugned order, it appears that an application was filed on 14.11.2006 to recall P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination only on the ground that they have not been cross-examined with regard to fact and legal aspect of the case and in order to have a fair trial and to ensure justice, the said witnesses should be recalled for further cross-examination. It appears that no other ground has been taken in the petition to recall the said witnesses. Unless acceptable grounds are mentioned in the petition to recall the witnesses, it will not be possible on the part of any Court to find out as to whether recalling the said witnesses for further cross-examination is necessary for the purpose of trial or not. Merely because these witnesses were not cross-examined properly by the previous counsel, should not be a ground for recalling the said witnesses for further cross-examination at the instance of a newly engaged counsel and in the process drag the trial. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and cross-examined in 2003, P.Ws.3 to 9 were examined and cross-examined in 2004 and P.Ws. 10 and 11 were examined and cross-examined in 2006. It is evident from the dates of their examination and cross-examination that no steps were taken by the petitioner to recall at least P.Ws.1 to 9 for almost three years for the purpose of further cross-examination. P.Ws. 10 and 11 were examined recently but no acceptable ground has been taken in the petition to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination. As a matter of fact, I find from the deposition copies that some cross-examination has been made on behalf of the accused person. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence under Sections 120-B/420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such type of cases mostly depend on the documents and the witnesses are examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the documents. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for r ailing the P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. So far as P.W.12 is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that unless P.Ws. 1 to 11 are recalled for further examination, cross-examination of P.W. 12 will not be much of relevance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Kishore Chandra Mohapatra v. Panchanan Singh and Ors. reported in 1995 (8) OCR 241. The Court in the said decision observed that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives very wide powers to all Courts at any stage in any proceeding to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be necessary for a just decision of the case. In the aforesaid case after examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, an application was filed to recall the said witnesses for further examination on the ground that they had not been properly cross-examined relating to commission of offences and, therefore further cross-examination is necessary. The trial Court having allowed the petition, the said order was challenged before this Court. Considering the reasons indicated by the trial Court in recalling the said witnesses for further examination, this Court did not interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Chairman Bag v. Mohanial Jain reported in 1996 (11) O.C.R. 531. In the said case, the Court again held that a witness can be recalled at any stage if the Court is satisfied that the same is essential or needed for just decision in the case. On the facts of the case, the Court allowed application and directed recalling the complainant for further cross-examination. There is no dispute that the Court has wide powers to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination in order to impart justice to the parties. But at the same time, the Court cannot also overlook the fact that there may be cases where further cross-examination is unnecessary or recalling the witnesses may result in lingering the proceeding for indefinite period. Here is a case where steps were never taken for recalling the witnesses for years and only with change of counsel, the petition had been filed to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination. Change of lawyer can never be a ground for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination. Apart from the above, in the application filed to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination no reasons have been assigned except that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined properly on facts and law. As observed earlier, such type of cases mostly depend on the documents and witnesses are only examined to prove the documents. Under these circumstances, I am of the view of that there is no need to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(1)OLR169',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Republic of India',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536214'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
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

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
			(int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 13(2',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 311'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'L. Mohapatra',
			(int) 1 => 'J.1',
			(int) 2 => 'S.K. Padhi',
			(int) 3 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 4 => 'Chandra Mohapatra v.',
			(int) 5 => 'Panchanan Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Bag v. Mohanial Jain'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'C.B.I.',
			(int) 2 => 'T.R.',
			(int) 3 => 'C.B.I.',
			(int) 4 => 'C.B.I.',
			(int) 5 => 'C.B.I.',
			(int) 6 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 7 => 'Kishore'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '14.11.2006',
			(int) 1 => '2002',
			(int) 2 => '14.11.2006',
			(int) 3 => 'between 2003 to 2006',
			(int) 4 => '14.11.2006',
			(int) 5 => '2003',
			(int) 6 => '2004',
			(int) 7 => '2006',
			(int) 8 => 'almost three years',
			(int) 9 => '1995',
			(int) 10 => '1996',
			(int) 11 => 'years'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Bhubaneswar',
			(int) 1 => 'Court',
			(int) 2 => 'Shri Padhi',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 5 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 6 => 'Court',
			(int) 7 => 'Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Reliance',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'O.C.R.',
			(int) 15 => 'Court',
			(int) 16 => 'Court',
			(int) 17 => 'Court',
			(int) 18 => 'Court',
			(int) 19 => 'Court',
			(int) 20 => 'CRLMC'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '24',
			(int) 1 => '1 to 11',
			(int) 2 => '11',
			(int) 3 => '1 to 11',
			(int) 4 => '2',
			(int) 5 => '9',
			(int) 6 => '10 and 11',
			(int) 7 => '9',
			(int) 8 => '10 and 11',
			(int) 9 => '120',
			(int) 10 => '34',
			(int) 11 => '13(1)(d',
			(int) 12 => '1 to 11',
			(int) 13 => '1 to 11',
			(int) 14 => '8)',
			(int) 15 => '241',
			(int) 16 => '3',
			(int) 17 => '11',
			(int) 18 => '531'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 1 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 2 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 3 => 'P.Ws'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.W. 12'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536214',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Thomas Kujur',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  1 to 11 for further cross-examination on the ground that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined on fact as well as legal aspect. 531. In the said case, the Court again held that a witness can be recalled at any stage if the Court is satisfied that the same is essential or needed for just decision in the case.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Chairman Bag v. Mohanial Jain;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-12-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' L. Mohapatra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Mohapatra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 24 of 2002 rejecting the application to recall P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On 14.11.2006 P.W.12 was examined. On the said date an application was filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court to recall the P.Ws.1 to 11 for further cross-examination on the ground that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined on fact as well as legal aspect. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner further cross-examination of the said witnesses is required for a fair trial and to ensure justice. The effective adjudication of the case can only be made if the said witnesses are recalled for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The aforesaid petition was opposed by the C.B.I. Shri S.K. Padhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that these witnesses were examined in between 2003 to 2006 and at no point of time, effort was made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to recall the said witnesses for cross-examination. It was submitted by Shri Padhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. that with the change of lawyer on behalf of the petitioner, the witnesses should not be recalled for further cross-examination, unless the petitioner makes out a case deserving an order for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. From the impugned order, it appears that an application was filed on 14.11.2006 to recall P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination only on the ground that they have not been cross-examined with regard to fact and legal aspect of the case and in order to have a fair trial and to ensure justice, the said witnesses should be recalled for further cross-examination. It appears that no other ground has been taken in the petition to recall the said witnesses. Unless acceptable grounds are mentioned in the petition to recall the witnesses, it will not be possible on the part of any Court to find out as to whether recalling the said witnesses for further cross-examination is necessary for the purpose of trial or not. Merely because these witnesses were not cross-examined properly by the previous counsel, should not be a ground for recalling the said witnesses for further cross-examination at the instance of a newly engaged counsel and in the process drag the trial. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and cross-examined in 2003, P.Ws.3 to 9 were examined and cross-examined in 2004 and P.Ws. 10 and 11 were examined and cross-examined in 2006. It is evident from the dates of their examination and cross-examination that no steps were taken by the petitioner to recall at least P.Ws.1 to 9 for almost three years for the purpose of further cross-examination. P.Ws. 10 and 11 were examined recently but no acceptable ground has been taken in the petition to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination. As a matter of fact, I find from the deposition copies that some cross-examination has been made on behalf of the accused person. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence under Sections 120-B/420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such type of cases mostly depend on the documents and the witnesses are examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the documents. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for r ailing the P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. So far as P.W.12 is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that unless P.Ws. 1 to 11 are recalled for further examination, cross-examination of P.W. 12 will not be much of relevance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Kishore Chandra Mohapatra v. Panchanan Singh and Ors. reported in 1995 (8) OCR 241. The Court in the said decision observed that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives very wide powers to all Courts at any stage in any proceeding to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be necessary for a just decision of the case. In the aforesaid case after examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, an application was filed to recall the said witnesses for further examination on the ground that they had not been properly cross-examined relating to commission of offences and, therefore further cross-examination is necessary. The trial Court having allowed the petition, the said order was challenged before this Court. Considering the reasons indicated by the trial Court in recalling the said witnesses for further examination, this Court did not interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Chairman Bag v. Mohanial Jain reported in 1996 (11) O.C.R. 531. In the said case, the Court again held that a witness can be recalled at any stage if the Court is satisfied that the same is essential or needed for just decision in the case. On the facts of the case, the Court allowed application and directed recalling the complainant for further cross-examination. There is no dispute that the Court has wide powers to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination in order to impart justice to the parties. But at the same time, the Court cannot also overlook the fact that there may be cases where further cross-examination is unnecessary or recalling the witnesses may result in lingering the proceeding for indefinite period. Here is a case where steps were never taken for recalling the witnesses for years and only with change of counsel, the petition had been filed to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination. Change of lawyer can never be a ground for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination. Apart from the above, in the application filed to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination no reasons have been assigned except that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined properly on facts and law. As observed earlier, such type of cases mostly depend on the documents and witnesses are only examined to prove the documents. Under these circumstances, I am of the view of that there is no need to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(1)OLR169',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Republic of India',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536214'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 482 Cr',
		(int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 13(2',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 311'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'L. Mohapatra',
		(int) 1 => 'J.1',
		(int) 2 => 'S.K. Padhi',
		(int) 3 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 4 => 'Chandra Mohapatra v.',
		(int) 5 => 'Panchanan Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Bag v. Mohanial Jain'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'C.B.I.',
		(int) 2 => 'T.R.',
		(int) 3 => 'C.B.I.',
		(int) 4 => 'C.B.I.',
		(int) 5 => 'C.B.I.',
		(int) 6 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 7 => 'Kishore'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '14.11.2006',
		(int) 1 => '2002',
		(int) 2 => '14.11.2006',
		(int) 3 => 'between 2003 to 2006',
		(int) 4 => '14.11.2006',
		(int) 5 => '2003',
		(int) 6 => '2004',
		(int) 7 => '2006',
		(int) 8 => 'almost three years',
		(int) 9 => '1995',
		(int) 10 => '1996',
		(int) 11 => 'years'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Bhubaneswar',
		(int) 1 => 'Court',
		(int) 2 => 'Shri Padhi',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 5 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 6 => 'Court',
		(int) 7 => 'Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Reliance',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'O.C.R.',
		(int) 15 => 'Court',
		(int) 16 => 'Court',
		(int) 17 => 'Court',
		(int) 18 => 'Court',
		(int) 19 => 'Court',
		(int) 20 => 'CRLMC'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '24',
		(int) 1 => '1 to 11',
		(int) 2 => '11',
		(int) 3 => '1 to 11',
		(int) 4 => '2',
		(int) 5 => '9',
		(int) 6 => '10 and 11',
		(int) 7 => '9',
		(int) 8 => '10 and 11',
		(int) 9 => '120',
		(int) 10 => '34',
		(int) 11 => '13(1)(d',
		(int) 12 => '1 to 11',
		(int) 13 => '1 to 11',
		(int) 14 => '8)',
		(int) 15 => '241',
		(int) 16 => '3',
		(int) 17 => '11',
		(int) 18 => '531'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 1 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 2 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 3 => 'P.Ws'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.W. 12'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536214',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Thomas Kujur',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  1 to 11 for further cross-examination on the ground that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined on fact as well as legal aspect. 531. In the said case, the Court again held that a witness can be recalled at any stage if the Court is satisfied that the same is essential or needed for just decision in the case.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Chairman Bag v. Mohanial Jain;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-12-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' L. Mohapatra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Mohapatra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 24 of 2002 rejecting the application to recall P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On 14.11.2006 P.W.12 was examined. On the said date an application was filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court to recall the P.Ws.1 to 11 for further cross-examination on the ground that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined on fact as well as legal aspect. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner further cross-examination of the said witnesses is required for a fair trial and to ensure justice. The effective adjudication of the case can only be made if the said witnesses are recalled for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The aforesaid petition was opposed by the C.B.I. Shri S.K. Padhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that these witnesses were examined in between 2003 to 2006 and at no point of time, effort was made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to recall the said witnesses for cross-examination. It was submitted by Shri Padhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. that with the change of lawyer on behalf of the petitioner, the witnesses should not be recalled for further cross-examination, unless the petitioner makes out a case deserving an order for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. From the impugned order, it appears that an application was filed on 14.11.2006 to recall P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination only on the ground that they have not been cross-examined with regard to fact and legal aspect of the case and in order to have a fair trial and to ensure justice, the said witnesses should be recalled for further cross-examination. It appears that no other ground has been taken in the petition to recall the said witnesses. Unless acceptable grounds are mentioned in the petition to recall the witnesses, it will not be possible on the part of any Court to find out as to whether recalling the said witnesses for further cross-examination is necessary for the purpose of trial or not. Merely because these witnesses were not cross-examined properly by the previous counsel, should not be a ground for recalling the said witnesses for further cross-examination at the instance of a newly engaged counsel and in the process drag the trial. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and cross-examined in 2003, P.Ws.3 to 9 were examined and cross-examined in 2004 and P.Ws. 10 and 11 were examined and cross-examined in 2006. It is evident from the dates of their examination and cross-examination that no steps were taken by the petitioner to recall at least P.Ws.1 to 9 for almost three years for the purpose of further cross-examination. P.Ws. 10 and 11 were examined recently but no acceptable ground has been taken in the petition to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination. As a matter of fact, I find from the deposition copies that some cross-examination has been made on behalf of the accused person. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence under Sections 120-B/420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such type of cases mostly depend on the documents and the witnesses are examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the documents. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for r ailing the P.Ws. 1 to 11 for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. So far as P.W.12 is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that unless P.Ws. 1 to 11 are recalled for further examination, cross-examination of P.W. 12 will not be much of relevance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Kishore Chandra Mohapatra v. Panchanan Singh and Ors. reported in 1995 (8) OCR 241. The Court in the said decision observed that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives very wide powers to all Courts at any stage in any proceeding to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be necessary for a just decision of the case. In the aforesaid case after examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, an application was filed to recall the said witnesses for further examination on the ground that they had not been properly cross-examined relating to commission of offences and, therefore further cross-examination is necessary. The trial Court having allowed the petition, the said order was challenged before this Court. Considering the reasons indicated by the trial Court in recalling the said witnesses for further examination, this Court did not interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Chairman Bag v. Mohanial Jain reported in 1996 (11) O.C.R. 531. In the said case, the Court again held that a witness can be recalled at any stage if the Court is satisfied that the same is essential or needed for just decision in the case. On the facts of the case, the Court allowed application and directed recalling the complainant for further cross-examination. There is no dispute that the Court has wide powers to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination in order to impart justice to the parties. But at the same time, the Court cannot also overlook the fact that there may be cases where further cross-examination is unnecessary or recalling the witnesses may result in lingering the proceeding for indefinite period. Here is a case where steps were never taken for recalling the witnesses for years and only with change of counsel, the petition had been filed to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination. Change of lawyer can never be a ground for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination. Apart from the above, in the application filed to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination no reasons have been assigned except that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined properly on facts and law. As observed earlier, such type of cases mostly depend on the documents and witnesses are only examined to prove the documents. Under these circumstances, I am of the view of that there is no need to recall the said witnesses for further cross-examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(1)OLR169',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Republic of India',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536214'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
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

LAW: Section 482 Cr, the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2, Section 311

PERSON: L. Mohapatra, J.1, S.K. Padhi, Counsel, Chandra Mohapatra v., Panchanan Singh, Bag v. Mohanial Jain

GPE: P.C., C.B.I., T.R., C.B.I., C.B.I., C.B.I., P.Ws, Kishore

DATE: 14.11.2006, 2002, 14.11.2006, between 2003 to 2006, 14.11.2006, 2003, 2004, 2006, almost three years, 1995, 1996, years

ORG: Bhubaneswar, Court, Shri Padhi, Court, the Prevention of Corruption Act, Learned Counsel, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Reliance, Court, O.C.R., Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, CRLMC

CARDINAL: 24, 1 to 11, 11, 1 to 11, 2, 9, 10 and 11, 9, 10 and 11, 120, 34, 13(1)(d, 1 to 11, 1 to 11, 8), 241, 3, 11, 531

NORP: P.Ws, P.Ws, P.Ws, P.Ws

PRODUCT: P.W. 12