SANKAR NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD further argument.

(2.) IN course of argument, the decision in the case of Michael Machado and Anr. v. C.B.I. and Anr. reported in (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 441 and Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh and Anr., (2002) 22 OCR (SC) 811 are cited at the Bar in the context of the procedure to be followed by the Trial court as per Section 319(4), Cr.P.C. once an application under Section 319(1), Cr.P.C. is allowed by adding accused.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners referring to the statutory provision in Sub -section (4) of Section 319, Cr.P.C. and the ratio in the case of Shashikant (supra) states that the impugned order of learned Asst. Sessions Judge is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Learned Standing Counsel while referring to the case of Michael (supra) states that when large number of witnesses have already been examined, in such a case, the trial Court should have the option of avoiding de novo trial.