Site navigation

In M/s. Chennai Covai Logistics v. S. Egyasamy (Madras High Court, 16 July 2010), a cheque-dishonour…

The Court upheld reopening: "It was lawful to question the accused about the omitted incriminating circumstances". An earlier examination and posting for judgment did not…

Choose your answer

In M/s. Chennai Covai Logistics v. S. Egyasamy (Madras High Court, 16 July 2010), a cheque-dishonour trial had been posted for judgment when the Magistrate noticed incriminating circumstances omitted from the accused’s CrPC section 313 examination. What did the High Court hold about reopening for further questioning?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer A

The Court upheld reopening: "It was lawful to question the accused about the omitted incriminating circumstances". An earlier examination and posting for judgment did not extinguish that power, and further questioning protected the opportunity to explain the prosecution material.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic