Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Anmol Sharma (advocate)     06 January 2011

please explain 299 Cr. P. C.

Dear Brothers..

 

Please I would be great full if it is explained what is the law regarding sectopn 299 crpc.

 

In my case one person absconded during investigation and the other accused facing trial was acquitted. After many years of main accuseds acquittal the second accused is arrested.

Now Learned Judge is saying that I will not read the evidence in court for the second accused but will read the Police Challan/Charge sheet only.

I read Aby salem Ansari Judgment.. that too says that for the abscoonder the court will read evidence in court for the other accuseds only when the witnesses are dead, cannot be found etc..

 

Please help me and advice if there is a judgment that explians in detail the procedure of 299 in detail..

 

Thanks

Anmol.

 



Learning

 2 Replies

Bhawani Mahapatra (Law Officer)     06 January 2011

Dear Anmol

The Judge is bound to relay the deposition made by the witness in absence of the accused, who is absconding at the time of trial as per the provision u/s 299(i). If he is not satisfied with your pleadings, its better to go to High Court for a order in this regard U/s 299 (ii).

Anmol Sharma (advocate)     06 January 2011

Thank You Bhawani ji for the reply...

I am copying the text in Abu Salem Ansari's case......

As regards the first respondent, sub-section (1) of Section 299 would apply as he, an accused person, was absconding, his case is already split up and has to undergo the trial. Obviously, the evidence adduced in the earlier trial cannot be used against the first respondent except as provided in sub- section (1) of Section 299 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances of the absconding accused appears again, the prosecution witnesses have to be examined afresh. But, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience, the prosecution would be justified in relying on the evidence already on record taken in the earlier trial in the absence of the absconding accused.

this judgment DB of SC says things quite different.. so I am unable to grasp the real meaning...

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register