Jhangm^.Ehpbeoji:; ' 7 Sind 129 that when the prosecution further call unless the Court bn going into the merits evidence after the chargé has been framed, of the case holds that there is no case the section requires that the accused against the appellant. In the present case should be examined after such evidence unfortunately, the appellant is not Téprqr has been recorded. In the present case sented and is not present here to-day. He the prosecution have called two important has already undergone the substantive witnesses after the framing of the chargé sentence. It; would mean a visions of S. 342, Cr. P. C. and the proper case is that the Paggi did recognise procedure would in an ordinary case be some of the footprints to be those of to order re-trial from the point at which the thief Sodho. The Paggi has not been the appellant should have been examined, examined to explain whether he identi fied any of the footprints or not. Both (5) 2

AIR 1923 All 81

All India Reporter, Allahabad Series

India - Uttar Pradesh

Cases Referring to this Case

LawCite: Privacy | Disclaimers | Conditions of Use | Acknowledgements | Feedback