WRIT PETITION NO. 4 v. Malcom Gonsalves
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. S.M.Mirajkar for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More, APP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : January 23, 2012. P. C. :
By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has allowed respondent no.1 – accused’s application for re- examining the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case of the respondent – accused is that question no.4 asked to him in examination under section 313 is the composite question and therefore was misleading. The accused is accepting that he had given the cheque, however, he is denying that cheque was given in discharge of any liability or debt. Learned Magistrate, after perusal of question No.4 and respective cases of the complainant and respondent, has allowed the said application of the accused. The impugned order, in my opinion, is rightly -: 2 :- passed in furtherance of object of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere with the same. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 23 Jan 2012. The bench was RANJIT MORE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.