Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court has held in the case of Pitta Chandramma v. the State of AP that in a complaint case triable exclusively by Court of Session, the Magistrate need not direct the complainant to examine all the list-mentioned witnesses but it is sufficient for the complainant to produce only those witnesses on whom he has confidence. It was further observed by Justice U Durga Prasad Rao that if the evidence of any witness who was earlier omitted is essential for reaching the just decision of a case, that witness can be examined by the Session’s Court only in terms of Section 311 CrPC by giving appropriate reasons.
In the abovesaid case, the accused had contended before the High Court that on the commission of a case to the Sessions Court, the said court should only examine the witnesses which were earlier examined by the Magistrate and not the omitted ones. He further argued that the accused cannot have the advantage of the earlier statements so as to confront them during the trial to point out any contradictions or improvements if the court decides to examine all the witnesses, including those which weren’t examined by the Magistrate. The court relying on the decision of the High Court full-bench in the G Subba Naidu case rejected the argument and laid down that the court can examine any other witness it deems necessary to meet the end of justice, however, that witness will not be examined as the witness of the complainant or prosecution but as a court witness as laid down U/s. 311 of CrPC.
86540
103860
630
114
59824