Legal Reference Library

Delhi High Court has recently held that if cross examination of a witness is concluded by a counsel upto best of his capability, subsequent change of counsel by a party would not confer any right on him/her to recall the witness for further cross examination or to fill up the lacuna, if any, left. The Bench comprising Justices Pratibha Rani and Pradeep Nandrajog also held that the witnesses cannot be harassed by a party by making them to reappear for cross examination just because the new counsel wants to further cross examine them. Recalling of a witness after the trial has concluded has the direct effect on expeditious conclusion of the trial. The Bench was hearing an Appeal against a Family Court order whereby the Judge has dismissed the three applications filed by wife in a Divorce proceedings. The evidence by both the parties stands closed and the matter is listed for final arguments. At that stage the appellant/wife filed three applications for re-calling some witnesses and givin...

Courts can entertain petitions to recall non-bailable arrest warrants (NBWs) without insisting on the presence of people against whom they had been issued, but it does not mean the practice should be followed invariably in all cases irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned, the Madras High Court Bench here has said. Justice S. Vimala made the observation while rejecting the plea of Shanmugapandian, an accused in a criminal case, to direct the Valliyoor Judicial Magistrate in Tirunelveli district to recall an NBW without insisting upon his appearance. The judge said the Magistrate could at most be directed to consider the plea for recall of warrant right on the day when the petitioner surrenders. She pointed out that the Magistrate was constrained to issue the arrest warrant not only because the petitioner did not appear in the court on a particular day but also because he failed to file an application either under Section 317 or Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Proc...

Allahabad High Court has held that, in view of the prohibition contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrP.C has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review a Judgment in a Criminal Case, after the Judgement is signed. Relying on the Supreme Court Judgment in Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal, 1981 (1) SCC 500, the Court held that the prohibition in Section 362 CrPC against the court altering or reviewing its judgment, is subject to what is “otherwise provided by this code or by any other law for the time being in force”. These words, however, refer to those provisions only where the Court has been expressly authorized by the code or other law to alter or review its judgement. The inherent power of the court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in Section 362 CrPC and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that power can be of no avail. “Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the ef...