High CourtsSingle Bench(1981) 04 J&K CK 0001

Mohammad Sultan Malik vs Raja

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 5 April 1981 · Citation: (1981) SriLJ 32

HON’BLE JUDGES
I.K.Kotwal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Reference No . 29 of 981

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 243 words

A party has no right to summon a witness u/s 540 It is on the other hand the out look of the Court itself whether or not to summon a person as a

witness u/s 540. Where a court refuses to exercise descreation by not summoning a person or otherwise, it cannot by doing so said to have

decided any right of the parties. Such an order is interlocutory in nature against which no revision is competent.

The parties are absent despite the facts that they were directed by Session Judge, Badgam, to appear in the court is person. Even so, the reference

is utterly misconceived. An order passed by Munaiff Judicial Magistrate Chadura refusing to recall a witness u/s 540 Cr. Pr. Code was challenged

in revision before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge on examining the record of the case, was of the opinio that the material

on the record justified resummoning of the winness by the court in exercise of its power u/s 540. A party has no right to summon a witness u/s 540.

It is on the other hand the out look of the court itself whether or not to summon a person as a witness u/s 540. Where a court refuses to exercise

its discretion by not summoning a person or otherwise, it cannot by doing so said to have decided any right of the parties for as already, stated no

right in a party.