Mr Tidke denied all the adverse suggestions given to him in his cross-examination by the Union. However, case sought to be made out in the written statement by the Union making allegations against the appellant-Mill was never put to Mr. Tidke when he was under cross-examination. The law in this behalf is clear. Wherever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in the cross- examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony could not be disputed at all. It is wrong to think that this is essentially a technical rule of evidence. It is rule of essential justice. It serves to prevent surprise at trial and miscarriage of justice because it gives notice to the other side of actual case that is going to be made out when the turn of the party on whose behalf the cross-examination is being made comes to give and lead evidence by producing witnesses. It has been stated on high authority of the House of Lords that this much a counsel is bound to do while cross-examining that he must put to each of his opponent's witnesses in turn, so much of his own case as concerns that particular witness or in which that witness has any share. If he asks no question with regard to this, then he must be taken to have accepted the opponents case in its entirety. (see A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y.Derderian AIR 1961 Cal 539; Sarwansing v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0868/2002 : 1995CriLJ3630 ).
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Print Page
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Appeal Nos. 364 and 441 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2004
Decided On: 11.06.2007
Hindoostan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Crown Mills Siddhivinayak Kamgar Karmachari Sangharsha Sanghatana
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan and V.C. Daga, JJ.
Citation: 2007 (4) ALLMR 376.
Read full judgment here: Click here
No comments:
Post a Comment