The petitioners submitted a request for a formal attendance of witnesses to the Section 265F (7) Contempt Rule (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 148 and 149 petition, under which the trial court granted the police officer a defense. Demands to be called as a witness / accused said that the police officer was necessary and relevant witness to be investigated for the fair decision of the matter, Section 265F (7), under the provisions of CRPC, the court Was mandated to take action to force attendance. The court may refuse to return a defense witness, but the court may refuse to return a defense witness if the request for a witness test as a police officer is for contempt or delay or to defeat the execution of justice. The reasons for denying it were bound to be recorded. In the present case, the proceedings for the production of defense witnesses in the court said that no concrete reason for refusing to proceed was produced for the production of defeat. NICE witnesses Applicants / defendants have the right to present as many witnesses as possible in their defense, whether the evidence of the desired police officer can be helpful to the applicants and can be relied upon, which was a question decided in the main case. Could be dealt with at the time. It was premature to say that the opinion of the police was neither binding on the court nor any worthwhile trial court; it was illegal to do so by refusing to seek the circumstances. The police officer contested as a defense witness. The order was set aside and directed to the trial court. High Court summons police officer as defense witness
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
