1

Powers and Restrictions under Section 309 and 311 Cr.P.C

by
M.Shubhavani,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Kadapa

The section contains directions to the Courts to conduct criminal

proceedings expeditiously on day to day basis until all the witnesses in
attendance have been examined. It authorises the Magistrate to remand
the accused to judicial custody if necessary after taking cognizance of the
offence or commencement of the trial.
This section also regulates the powers of the criminal Courts to
postpone or adjourn the proceedings and emphasises that stay of
proceedings for indefinite period should be avoided so as to eliminate the
chances of loss of evidence by passage of time and unnecessary
harassment to the accused.

Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code:

Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings
In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-
to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless
the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to
be necessary for reasons to be recorded;
Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under
section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D of
the Indian Penal Code, the inquiry or trial shall, as far as possible be
completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the
charge sheet.
Sub-Section (2) of 309 Cr.P.C, if the Court after taking
cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or
advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or
trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or
adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it
considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in
custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to
custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time:
 2

Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance no

adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them,
except for special reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose
only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence
proposed to be imposed on him.
Provided also that -
1. no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except
where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;
2. the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court,
shall not be a ground for adjournment;
3. where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is
not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is
not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court
may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass
such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-
chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be.
Explanations:
1. If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicious that
the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely
that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a
reasonable cause for a remand.
2. The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be
granted in include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by
the prosecution or the accused.

Cr.P.C Amendment Act, 2008 [Clause (21)]

This clause amends Sec.309 of the Code relating to power to
postpone or adjourn proceedings. The clause inserts a proviso to sub-
section (1) in order to prevent trials in rape cases including child rape
cases, from being unduly delayed by providing that the inquiry or trial in
such cases shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two
months from the date Page No. 2 of 18 of commencement of the
examination of witnesses.
This clause inserts another proviso to sub-section (2) specifying the
circumstances where adjournment shall not be granted by the Court.
 3

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013:

By the present amendment, sub-section (1) along with the proviso
has been substituted by a new sub-section (1) and proviso. The new sub-
section (1) makes it mandatory to hold the trial on a day to day basis and
adjournment should be allowed only when necessitated and for reasons to
be recorded. Under the new proviso relating to offences enumerated
therein shall be completed within two months of filing of the charge sheet.
Sub-section (2) empowers the Court to remand the accused but if
the Court happens to be that of a Magistrate, he shall not remand an
accused person to custody for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time, but
no limit has been set to the number of such successive remands. However,
there is no such inhibition on the Sessions Court.
Any custody in pursuance of an order of remand for a term
exceeding fifteen days becomes illegal and the detained accused becomes
entitled for the grant of bail or to secure his release by filing a writ under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure code (Cr.P.C.) governs the
custody of an accused person during the investigation of a case. On the
other hand, provisions relating to custody of accused under Section 309
(2) of Cr.P.C reads ”after taking cognizance of an offence, or
commencement of trail”. Thus, Section 309 (2) regulates the power of the
Court to grant custody of the accused after filing of charge sheet and after
taking of cognizance of the offence.
If the accused is in custody and the case is required to be adjourned
during the trail stage or after taking cognizance of the case (which implies
filing of charge sheet, if it is on the basis of a Police investigation), then for
reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate can remand the accused
to further custody (not exceeding 15 days at a time) under Section 309(2)
of Cr.P.C.
Under Section 309 Cr.P.C., only judicial custody is permissible,
whereas under Section 167 both – Police custody and Judicial custody- are
permissible subject to time limits mentioned thereon.
Once the trial has begun, Section 167 cannot be used (except, when
further investigation is permitted). Section 309 Cr.P.C is a section dealing
with custody during trial. In addition, after filing of charge sheet, Section
209 Cr.P.C can also be used for remanding accused to custody by the
Magistrate (Wherever it is relevant) who commits the case to the Sessions
Court if the case is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court.
 4

Proviso 3 to Section 309 (2) which has been inserted by the

Amendment Act of 1978 clarifies that no adjournment should be granted
only for the purpose of enabling the accused to show cause against the
sentence proposed to be imposed on him.
The Code, no doubt, entitles an accused to have an opportunity of
being heard on the question of sentence under Section 235 (2), but this
should not lead to undue delay in disposal of the case. Therefore, this
proviso to Section 309 (2) does not allow the accused to ask for an
adjournment to be heard on the point of sentence, but the Court is not
prohibited from granting such adjournment in serious cases of
imprisonment for life or the sentence of death in the interest of justice.
An order of remand passed in the absence of accused will not be
invalid and the Court can pass an order of remand of the accused under
Section 309 (2) even if the accused is not present in the Court. Such
occasion may arise due to the serious illness of the accused or some other
reasons which prevent his attendance in the Court.
Section 309 does not prohibit the Court which commits an accused
to Sessions Court to direct his being detained during the trial until it is
finally concluded. This will help the Sessions Judge in smooth conduct of
the trial as he will not be required to confer every time when he adjourns
or postpones the trial, on any one such authority for detention of the
accused person.
Where a Magistrate, in course of a trial adjourned the case by a
written order but did not make an order to remand the accused to judicial
custody, it was held that the detention of the accused after the
adjournment order was illegal.
In State Vs. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, AIR 1997 SC 2494 held
that, “The words ‘accused if in custody’ appearing in Section 309 (2) refer
and relate to an accused who was before the Court when cognizance was
taken or when enquiry or trail was being held in respect of him and not to
an accused who is subsequently arrested in course of further investigation.
So far as the accused in the first category is concerned he can be
remanded to judicial custody only in view of Section 309(2), but he who
comes under the second category will be governed by Section 167 so long
as further investigation continues. That necessarily means that in respect
of the latter the Court which as taken cognizance of the offence may
exercise its power to detain him in Police custody, subject to the fulfillment
of the requirements and the limitation of Section 167 Cr.P.C.
 5

Even after cognizance is taken of an offence the Police has power to

investigate into that offence further, which can be exercised only in
accordance with Chapter XII. The provisions of Section 167 thereof would
apply to a person who comes to be later arrested by the Police in course of
such investigation.
As between Civil and Criminal proceedings the criminal matters
should be given precedence, as held in M.S.Sheriff Vs. The State of
Madras and others AIR 1954 SC 397.
A detention U/S 167 may be either in Police or Judicial custody. A
detention under this Section 309 Cr.P.C can only be a judicial custody, as
held in Dukhi And another Vs. State and another, AIR 1955 All. 521.
Preliminary charge-sheet cannot be treated as Police report within
the meaning of S.173(2) Cr.P.C so the magistrate cannot take cognizance
of the offence on the basis of the preliminary charge-sheet and remand the
accused U/S 309 Cr.P.C, as held in T.V.Sharma Vs. Turaga Kamala Devi
ILR 1975 AP 589; 1975 APLJ 28.
Personal presence of an accused before a Magistrate for remand
under this section is not a necessary requirement. But as a rule of caution
it is highly desirable that he should be personally produced before the
Magistrate of that he may if he chooses make a representation against his
remand and for his release on bail, as held in Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi AIR 1972 SC 711).
The detention u/s 167 is usually called remand, but it is really
authorized detention. The second stage contemplated under this section
comes into operation when the investigation is not completed within 15
days land more time is needed for collecting further evidence. Magistrate
can remand the accused under Section 167 for a period of 15 days on the
whole. Thereafter he can do so if he has jurisdiction to try the offence
under this section, for a term not exceeding 15 days at a time, as held in
Shrilal Nandram and another Vs. R.R.Agrawal and another AIR
1960 MP 135.
Court gets power of remanding the accused u/S 309(2) Cr.P.C.
(1974) unlike u/S 344 of the old Code to custody only after taking
cognizance of the offence. Though the import of Explanation 1 to S.309(2)
is not clear, it cannot override the provisions of S.309(2), as held in Saligh
Vs. State of Kerala (1975 Crl.L.J 647).
Remanding the accused to custody beyond the period of 15 days in
his absence was held to be legal, as held in Rabindra Naik Vs. State of
Orissa, 1994 Cri.L.J 3521 (Ori).
 6

Depreciating the trend of criminal Courts adjourning the case for a

long interval after commencement of evidence, the Supreme Court, in
Doongar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, in Criminal appeal No.2045
of 2017 reiterated that the trial Courts must carry out the mandate of
Section 309 of the Cr.P.C and shall be mindful of not giving such
adjournments.
Powers of Magistrate are exercised by the Special Judge only in
relations to pre-cognizance remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C. It held:
“Special Court while remanding an accused in the post cognizance stage
under Section 309 (2) Cr.P.C does not exercise Magisterial powers as
envisaged under Section 167 Cr.P.C and cannot be treated as a Magistrate
within the ambit of the definition clause of the General Clauses Act.
Although remand of an accused at the pre-cognizance and post cognizance
stage may fall in the same genus, but they are of different species deriving
jurisdiction from independent provisions, namely, Section 167(2) in the
formers and Section 309(2) in the latter”.
The Court drew a distinction between pre-cognizance remand and
post-cognizance remand on the ground that the latter power can be
exercised only by a Court having power to try the case. It held: While the
power to remand an accused at pre-cognizance stage under section 167 of
the Code is purely magisterial, the power to remand an accused during
inquiry or trial at post-cognizance is vested in every Court having
jurisdiction to inquire or try the offence and snot upon a magistrate only”.
As per sub-Section 1 of Section 309 Cr.P.C, the Court may postpone
the inquiry or trial after taking cognizance of the offence if the Court
deems it advisable to do so. Similarly, on commencement of the trial, the
Court may from time to time adjourn it when utmost necessary. But in
both the cases, it has to record reasons for postponement or adjournment,
as the case may be.
The Court was fully justified in refusing to grant adjournment in
case for the examination of witnesses at the instance of prosecution, when
the prosecution took years to adduce a part of evidence.
The Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriji Vs. The State of Madras and
others 1954 AIR 397 observed by their Lord ship, that “the public
interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure and that
the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public
mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent
with fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let
things slide till memories have gone too dim to trust.”
 7

The Hon’ble Court in Ambika Prasad and another Vs. State

(Delhi Administration) held that the examination of witnesses should not
be adjourned for months together and such adjournments should not
exceed two or three months at the most. The Court should ensure speedy
disposal of trial and adjournments should be avoided as far as possible.
In R.D. Upadhyaya Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Writ petition (Civil) 559 of 1994 dt.13.4.2006, the Supreme Court
expressed deep concern for the plight of women prisoners whose children
also were lodged in jail along-with their mothers, and directed the Courts
that cases of such women prisoners should be decided expeditiously and
their cases need to be disposed of on priority basis.
Adjournments are sought by the counsel even though the witness
are present in Court, contrary to all principles of holding a trial. That apart,
after the Examination-in-Chief of a witness is over, adjournment is sought
for cross-examination and the disquieting feature is that the trial Court
grant time, as held in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2015 Cr.L.J
1442 (SC): AIR 2015 SC 1206.
It was held by their lord ship in Dildar And Ors. Vs. The State Of
U.P on 8.12.2011, it is apparent that once witness is in attendance,
adjournment has to be refused and has to be granted very rarely and in
exceptional circumstances for which special reasons have to be recorded.
Even if case is to be adjourned for some reasons then adjournment would
be granted only till next day. It is also evident that engagement of lawyer
in other court is not a ground for adjournment and court is not supposed to
wait for counsel, if witness is present in the court. The court is left with no
option but to record the statement of witness and pass further orders
dispensing with the cross-examination.
In the case at hand, trial court has done the same. It recorded the
statement of witnesses and as none came to cross-examine them,
opportunity for cross-examination was closed. The order was strictly in
accordance with amended provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Section 311 Cr.P.C. gives a discretion to the court to recall or re-
examine any person, if the evidence appears to be essential for just
decision of the case. This provision has to be read with Section 309 Cr.P.C.
as both the provisions provide a light into the scheme envisaged by Code.
If in this background, Section 309 and 311 of Cr.P.C. are interpreted,
it is manifest that engagement of new counsel cannot be a ground for
recalling the witnesses. Similarly, inadvertence, ignorance, absence or
 8

even incompetence of a counsel cannot be the sole ground for exercising

powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of State of
U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh and Ors. made in Appeal (Criminal)
No. 392 of 2001 are being quoted below:
"We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in court he
must be examined on that day. The court must know that most of the
witnesses could attend the court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping
aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of
income".
Witnesses are guest of the Court as they are assisting the Court in
reaching at the correct conclusion, therefore, they are entitled to be
treated with respect as they are eyes and ears of the justice.
Merely because a Civil suit is pending between parties criminal
proceedings which are property instituted and of which cognizance is taken
by magistrate in due process of law cannot be stayed unless there are
compelling grounds, as held in Babulal Mishrimal Vardhan Vs.
Sudershan Wadia, 1991 Cr.L.J 298 (Bom).
When prosecution took an unreasonably long time to produce
witnesses and to examine them, the refusal to adjourn the case by the
High Court was held reasonable, as held in State (Delhi Admn.) Vs.
Vishwanath Lugnani, AIR 1981 SC 1235.

Power and scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C

What is Section 311 of Cr.P.C?
It's the power to summon material witness, or examine person
present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other
proceeding under this code, summon any person as a witness, or examine
any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness.
The only factor which should govern the Court in exercise of powers
under Sec.311 should be whether such material is essential for the just
decision of the case. Even reading of Sec.311 of the Code would also
indicate the widest range of power conferred on the Court in that matter.
While exercising Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., the Court should not be
obvious that the prosecution should not be allowed to fill up the lacuna left
by the prosecution. Section 311 is meant to advance justice and to
suppress mischief, and arrive to a right conclusion.
The provision under section 311 Cr.P.C has been enacted with the
object of discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such facts
 9

for just decision of the case and therefore, it must be used judicially and
not capriciously or arbitrarily. If such a petition gives unfair advantage to
any side, causes serious prejudice or disadvantage to the defence of the
accused or it is motivated to fill up the lacuna of either side, the court
should re-frame from exercising the power. The paramount consideration
for exercising the discretion in entertaining such petition to examine or
recall and reexamine a witness being the essentiality for just decision of
the case and for the ends of the justice, the court must e careful enough to
see that its action should not result in causing injustice either the accused
or prosecution.
In Balvanth Singh vs state of Rajasthan in 1986 Cr.L.J.1374, it
was held that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C has two parts. The first part grants
discretion to the criminal court to enable it at any stage on enquiry, trial or
other proceeding under the Code to act on three ways namely, (i) to
summon any person as a witness, or (ii) to examine any person in
attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or (iii) to recall and re-
examine any person already examined. Under the second part, the court is
duty bound to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such
person if his evidence appears to be essential to just decision of the case.
The powers conferred by the first part are discretionary and such discretion
has to be exercised in accordance to the established principles of law.
However, under the second part of provision of section 11, there is no
discretion to summon are not to summon a witness. If the court comes to
conclusion that it is necessary for the just decision of the case, the court is
duty bound to summon and examine or recall or re-examine any person if
his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case.
In the case of Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India & Anr.
reported in 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 271, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
interpreted the provision of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and has delineated
the power and function of the trial court in the matter of exercising the
power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The section confers wide
discretionary power on Courts to summon any person as a witness or to
examine any person who is present though not summoned or recall and re-
examine any person already examined, when it thinks it expedient to do
so, in the interest of justice. The Judge or the Magistrate may resort to
either of the three actions as stated above, not only in the interest of the
accused only, but also for the benefit of the prosecution as well. The power
is exercisable at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the
Code.
 10

The High Court of Punjab in Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab held
that an order passed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. is of an interlocutory
nature and therefore no application of any kind can be made against such
an order.
When it appears to the Court that evidence of a particular person as
witness is essential to the just decision of the case, it is obligatory on its
part to exercise its power under this section and summon, examine, recall
or re-examine the said witness either suo moto or at the behest of the
accused for even the prosecution.
The Supreme Court in Union Territory of Dadra and Haveli v.
Fateh Singh Mohan Singh Chauhan held that summoning a witness
after defence evidence had been recorded could not be dubbed as filling in
a lacuna in prosecution case, unless serious prejudice was shown to have
been caused to the accused.
Section 311 empowers the Court to summon a material witness to
appear before the Court for recording his evidence even after the defence
evidence has been completed, if it is not adversely affecting the defence
(accused).
The Supreme Court in Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan,
has further clarified that the provision of Section 311 is not limited only for
the benefit of the accused. The determinative factor for the exercise of
power under Section 311 is whether it is summoning of a witness or
his/her examination is essential for reaching a just decision.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another vs.
State of Gujarat and others (2006)3 SCC 374 has held as under:-
The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not
be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the
valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the
witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether
it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited
only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise
of the powers of the Court to summon a witness under the Section merely
because the evidence supports the case for the prosecution and not that of
the accused.
Leading Judgment of SC on recalling of witness Us 311 Cr.p.C in
P.Chhaganlal Daga Vs. M.Sanjay Shaw, (2003) 11 SCC 486, held
that;
 11

a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is

needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under
Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case?
b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311
Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on
inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby
the ends of justice would be defeated.
c) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the
just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and
examine or recall and re-examine any such person.
d) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted
to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper
proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of
the case.
e) The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a
lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of
the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court
would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in
miscarriage of justice.
f) The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not
arbitrarily.
g) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to
examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in
order to arrive at a just decision of the case.
h) The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on
the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision.
i) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is
necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the
judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice
without such evidence being considered.
j) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the
safe guard, while exercising the discretion. The Court should bear in
mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors
and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material
was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should
be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified.
k) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is
basically for the prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity
to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it
 12

would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity

rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at
the cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that improper
or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to
undesirable results.
l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to
change the nature of the case against any of the party.
m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that
is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and
also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other
party.
n) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by
the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and
valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and
circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails
the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and,
therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons
concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a
human right.
In Kamlesh Diwakar vs State of M.P, M.Cr.C. No. 11021 of
2016, dt.08-11-2016, held that section 311 of crpc cannot be used to
substitute a witness.
In State of Harayana vs Ram mehar and others in Cr.A. NOS.
805-806 of 2016 dt.09-03-2016, held that recalling of witnesses u/s
311 Cr.P.C on the grounds that accused persons are in custody, the
counsel was ill, is not acceptable.
Power to recall or re-summon witness cannot be used to fill up the
lacuna in the prosecution case. (Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell)
(1999) 6 SCC 110.
The provision under section 311 Cr.P.C has been enacted with the
object of discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such facts
for just decision of the case and therefore, it must be used judicially and
not capriciously or arbitrarily. If such a petition gives unfair advantage to
any side, causes serious prejudice or disadvantage to the defence of the
accused or it is motivated to fill up the lacuna of either side, the court
should re-frame from exercising the power. The paramount consideration
for exercising the discretion in entertaining such petition to examine or
recall and re-examine a witness being the essentiality for just decision of
the case and for the ends of the justice, the court must be careful enough
 13

to see that its action should not result in causing injustice either the
accused or prosecution.

Important decisions:
1) Sundar Lal Vs. Urmila thakur in Cr. Revision no: 313 of 2017,
dt.16.03.2018.
2) Jamat Raj Kewajli Govani vs State Of Maharashtra in AIR 1968 SC
178.
3) Raja Ramprasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar and another in 2013(14) SCC
461.
4) U.T of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Anr. Vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh
Chauhan in 2006(7) SCC 529.
5) Iddar & Others Vs. Aabida & Anr in AIR 2007 SC 3029.
6) P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of A.P in AIR 2012 SC 2242.
7) Hoffman Andreas Vs. Inspector of Customs, in Amritsar 2000(10) SCC
430.
8) Vijay Kumar Vs. State of U.P and Anr in 2011(8) SCC 136.
9) Mannan SK and Others vs State of West Bengal and Anr in AIR 2014
SC 2950.
10) Lakshmi Priya Exports (India) Pvt limited and others Vs. Ramalingam
Mills limited and another 2016 law suit (Hyd) 46.