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
5 paragraphs · 214 wordsPrafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.
This revision is directed against the order dated 27.07.2011, passed by Trial Court (Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar) in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2009, whereby said court has rejected the application moved by the revisionist u/s 311 Code of Criminal Procedure.
Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner and other accused are facing trial in respect of offences punishable u/s 498A, 307, 304B Indian Penal Code, and one punishable u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. P.W. 1 Raju Saxena, P.W. 2 Sukhrani and P.W. 3 Sunita Devi have already been examined and cross-examined before the trial court. After close of their evidence, the revisionist moved an application u/s 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, that he wants to further cross-examine the three witnesses without disclosing what specific question was left out.
If the application u/s 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, is allowed in the above circumstances, it would encourage winning over the witnesses, and make the trial a futile exercise. That is not the spirit of the law. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds No. illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this revision is dismissed summarily.