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
7 paragraphs · 263 wordsShantanu Kemkar, Vacation Judge
Heard Shri Sharad Verma, learned Counsel for the applicants on the question of admission.
This Criminal Revision has been filed u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 25-4-2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Sessions Trial No. 103/2001 whereby the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner u/s 311, Cr.PC
By filing the aforesaid application the accused petitioners prayed before the Trial Court that the witness Dr. Kishore Kumar be recalled for further cross-examination as according to the petitioners some important questions regarding procedure adopted by him for recording the dying declaration has to be asked as the same could not be asked out of hot haste.
The Trial Court after due consideration of the aforesaid application submitted on behalf of the petitioners rejected the same by holding that Dr. Kishore Kumar has already been cross-examined by the petitioners and if any procedural mistake is there in recording the dying declaration by Dr. Kishore Kumar the same is a matter of argument. The Trial Court found it not necessary to recall the said witness for further cross-examination and has rejected the application by the impugned order.
In my considered view, the discretion exercised by the Trial Court is just and proper. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court for refusing the application to recall the witness are proper and in such circumstances the order passed by the Trial Court needs no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
Thus, the revision being devoid of any merit the same stands dismissed.