AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 233 wordsR.K. Pattanaik, J
Heard Mr. D.Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State.
Admit and notice.
Learned AGA accepts notice for the State-opposite party.
Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a request for recall and further cross-examination of P.W. 6 was declined by learned court below and the said witness has not been cross-examined at the instance of the petitioner and therefore, it should have been allowed but for no reasonable justification, the prayer was rejected. It is further submitted that merely on the ground of delay, the learned court below rejected such a request moved by an application in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C.
However, the Court does not find deposition of P.W. 6 to show that he was not examined at all by the petitioner before being discharged.
Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be adjourned to any future date so as to enable him to produce a copy of the deposition of P.W. 6 to satisfy the Court in that regard.
In view of such a prayer, the matter is adjourned.
List on 13th October, 2022.
An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules in course of the day and the same also be uploaded in the Courts’ website forthwith.
………………………….