{"id":37921,"date":"2016-03-02T11:24:32","date_gmt":"2016-03-02T05:54:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=37921"},"modified":"2016-03-28T18:30:55","modified_gmt":"2016-03-28T13:00:55","slug":"2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"2016 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2016 Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 311 and 313 \u2014 Recall of witnesses under S. 311 \u2014 When permissible and warranted:<\/strong> Plea of recall has to be bona fide. Mere (in)competence\/change of counsel cannot be ground for recall of witnesses. Recall cannot be allowed on plea that defence counsel (previous) was not competent and had not effectively crossexamined witnesses. Recall is not a matter of course and discretion given to court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. Plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with other relevant considerations including uncalled for hardship to witnesses and uncalled for delay in trial. Mere observation that recall was necessary \u201cfor ensuring fair of trial\u201d is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how fairness of trial suffered without recall. [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Customs \u2014 Concession\/Exemption\/Rebate\/Incentive\/Subsidy \u2014 Notification No. 4\/2006-CE exempting mineral ores from duty \u2014 Addition of Ch. Note 4 to Ch. 26 of CETA, 1985 by amendment carried out in the year 2011:<\/strong> With the addition of Note 4, a legal fiction is created treating the process of converting ores into concentrates as manufacture. Thus, held, Notification No. 4\/2006-CE which exempts only ores would not include within itself \u201cconcentrates\u201d also because of the reason that after the insertion of Note 4, concentrate is to be treated as a different product than ores, in law for the purposes of products of Ch. 26 of CETA, 1985. [Star Industries v. Commr. of Customs (Imports), (2016) 2 SCC 362<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 \u2014 Rr. 8, 4(2)(g), 9(1)(d) and 9(1)(e) \u2014 New replacement parts\/re-exported and refurbished parts imported under maintenance agreement for service and supply of parts of a (power) plant \u2014Valuation of such parts:<\/strong> Rr. 4 and 9 would only apply in case imported goods are \u201csold\u201d for export to India. For application of Rr. 4(2)(g) and 9(1)(d), what is necessary is that there should be proceeds which arise from resale, disposal, or use of the very imported goods by the buyer. R. 9(1)(e) would also have no application when there is no other payment actually made or to be made as a condition of sale of the imported goods by the buyer to the seller. [GMR Energy Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, (2016) 2 SCC 427<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Education and Universities \u2014 Reservation of Seats\/Quota\/Exemption\/Priority\/Affirmative Action\/Reverse Discrimination \u2014 Postgraduate\/Superspeciality courses:<\/strong> Reservation of seats in postgraduate\/superspeciality courses, not permissible. But there is exception for States of A.P. and Telangana for reservation based on domicile and institutional preference, on basis of Presidential Order under Art. 371-D of the Constitution. There is necessity of amendment and revision of reservation policy due to changed situation and development of States of A.P. and Telangana. Suggestions regarding such amendment given 27 years back in C. Surekha v. Union of India, (1988) 4 SCC 526, reiterated. [Sandeep v. Union of India, (2016) 2 SCC 328<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (as amended by Amendment Act 8 of 2015) \u2014 Ss. 175(1)(t) & (u)\u00a0 S. 175(1)(v) \u2014 Disqualification: <\/strong>S. 175(1)(v) prescribing minimum educational qualification for contesting election, not unconstitutional merely because it disqualifies a large section of rural population, in view of illiteracy, who would otherwise be eligible. Numerical dimension of that class of persons is not relevant for determining constitutionality of cl. (v). Object sought to be achieved is not irrational and has reasonable nexus with scheme and purpose of the Act. Hence cl. (v) not violative of Art. 14. [Rajbala v. State of Haryana, (2016) 2 SCC 445<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 Ss. 168, 147, 149, 157 and 2(30) \u2014 Motor accident \u2014 Liability to pay compensation:<\/strong> Under lease agreement, it was liability of owner to provide comprehensive insurance cover for all kinds of accidental risks. Owner was under liability to: (a) provide bus regularly, (b) employ a driver, who was to be duly licensed and not disqualified as provided in agreement, and (c) make payment of salary to driver. Further, bus was to be plied on routes as specified by SRTC and hiring charges were to be paid to registered owner. As per the agreement, owner of bus was to be solely liable for any claim arising out of any accident met by bus, however, if SRTC had to pay compensation arising out of any such accident, SRTC could recover that amount from owner out of the amount payable by it to owner or from the amount payable by insurer to owner. [Karnataka SRTC v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2016) 2 SCC 382<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 311 and 313 \u2014 Recall of witnesses under S. 311 \u2014 When permissible and warranted: Plea <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":102451,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases"],"yoast_head":"\n2016 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2016 Part 3 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2016 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2016 Part 3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 311 and 313 \u2014 Recall of witnesses under S. 311 \u2014 When permissible and warranted: Plea\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T05:54:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-28T13:00:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/\",\"name\":\"2016 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2016 Part 3 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-03-02T05:54:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-28T13:00:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2016 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2016 Part 3\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2016 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2016 Part 3 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2016 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2016 Part 3","og_description":"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 311 and 313 \u2014 Recall of witnesses under S. 311 \u2014 When permissible and warranted: Plea","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-03-02T05:54:32+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-28T13:00:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/","name":"2016 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2016 Part 3 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","datePublished":"2016-03-02T05:54:32+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-28T13:00:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/02\/2016-scc-vol-2-february-21-2016-part-3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2016 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2016 Part 3"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":64181,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/27\/arithmetical-approach-in-allowing-recall-of-witness-can-be-dangerous\/","url_meta":{"origin":37921,"position":0},"title":"Arithmetical approach in allowing recall of witness can be dangerous","author":"Sucheta","date":"August 27, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the matter where the accused persons has sought for recall of the witnesses under Section 311 read with Section 231(2) CrPC on the ground of illness of the counsel, the Bench of Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit, JJ held that recalling of witnesses as envisaged under the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":337491,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/19\/kerala-hc-rejects-actor-sunils-application-seeking-recall-of-witnesses-in-2017-actor-assault-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":37921,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Frivolous application filed for delaying disposal\u2019: Kerala HC rejects actor Sunil\u2019s plea to recall two expert witnesses for cross examination in 2017 actor assault case","author":"Editor","date":"December 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA prosecution witness, who was examined already, cannot be recalled by exercising the powers under Section 233 CrPC. However, such an exercise can be done under Section 311 CrPC at any stage, including that of Section 233, provided all the requirements and parameters of Section 311 are otherwise satisfied.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kerala High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":210480,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/21\/del-hc-recalling-of-material-witness-allowed-even-where-accused-held-to-have-not-exercised-due-diligence-in-defending-themselves\/","url_meta":{"origin":37921,"position":2},"title":"Del HC | Recalling of material witness allowed even where accused held to have not exercised due diligence in defending themselves","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Sunil Gaur, J., while putting petitioners to terms, allowed their application filed under Section 311 CrPC to recall three prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. Earlier, the trial court had dismissed the petitioner's application for recall of prosecution witnesses. Dinesh Sah and Rajeev Rajan, Advocates appearing\u00a0for petitioners submitted that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":225247,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/06\/all-hc-trial-court-has-the-duty-to-ensure-that-an-accused-gets-a-fair-trial-and-real-and-effective-aid-is-provided-to-him-under-s-304-of-crpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":37921,"position":3},"title":"All HC | Trial Court has the duty to ensure that an accused gets a fair trial; and \u201creal and effective\u201d aid is provided to him under S. 304 of CrPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court: Rajeev Singh, J. allowed an application of revision filed for quashing an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act) under Sections 376, 506, 377 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. In\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":67861,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/09\/09\/courts-must-strike-balance-between-protecting-rights-of-accused-and-preventing-harassment-of-victims-and-witnesses-due-to-prolonged-trials\/","url_meta":{"origin":37921,"position":4},"title":"Courts must strike balance between protecting rights of accused and preventing harassment of victims and witnesses due to prolonged trials","author":"Saba","date":"September 9, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: Setting aside the decision of the Court of Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, refusing the petitioner accused the right to recall an important witness for cross-examination, the Bench of Dr. P. Devadass, J., allowed the petitioners to recall the witness for cross-examination cautioning that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":155034,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/09\/09\/revisional-jurisdiction-is-to-interfere-in-the-matters-appearing-illegal-per-se-must-not-be-invoked-to-prolong-the-trial\/","url_meta":{"origin":37921,"position":5},"title":"Revisional jurisdiction is to interfere in matters appearing illegal per se, must not be invoked to prolong the trial","author":"Saba","date":"September 9, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a recent case, the Court had to hear a revision petition against the order of Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra by which he dismissed the application moved by the petitioner\/accused to recall the complainant as a witness under Section 311 CrPC for cross-examination. The plea of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37921","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37921\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/102451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}