Good Point but how .
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 26 June 2011
This query is : Resolved
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.06.2009
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.10719 of 2009
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009
1.Murali
2.Visalam
3.P.Bhanumathi .. Petitioners
Vs.
State Represented by its
Inspector of Police
W1 Police Station
Thousandlights
Chennai
(Cr.No.4 of 2007) .. Respondent
Point 5
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate did not properly consider the scope of the power of the court under Section 311 Cr.P.C and that the court below has erroneously dismissed the petition with an observation that such petition could not be filed for filling up lacuna. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners facing criminal charges, should be given reasonable opportunity to put-forth their defence and that cross-examining the prosecution witnesses with reference to the documents which came into the hands of the accused subsequent to the examination of the prosecution witnesses would help the accused persons very much in establishing their innocence; that the prosecution witnesses could not be cross-examined with reference to such documents as they were not readily available with the petitioners at the time of examination of P.Ws.1 to 4 before the trial court and that when they were able to get those documents, they approached the trial court under Section 311 in vain to get an order recalling P.Ws.1 to 4 so that they could be cross-examined with reference to the documents sought to be relied on by the petitioners to prove their innocence.
Question: What proof can we demand for the learned counsel that during the trial in the trial court he was not having the documents which he has know? [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[as they were not readily available with the petitioners at the time of examination of P.Ws.1 to 4 before the trial court.]]]]]]]]]] Also what does material witness means?
