TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to examine an additional witness and mark a document after closure of the complainant's evidence could be allowed when it was sought only to fill up lacuna and would prejudice the accused.
Analysis: Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers wide power to summon and examine any witness at any stage if the evidence is essential to the case. That power is not meant to cure omissions or negligence in presenting the case, particularly after the prosecution evidence has been closed and the accused has been examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Where the proposed witness was not cited earlier and the document sought to be marked had not been referred to in the complaint or evidence, permitting such examination would amount to filling up a lacuna and would cause prejudice to the accused.
Conclusion: The application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not maintainable on the facts, and the order permitting it was set aside in favour of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, though wide, cannot be exercised to remedy omission in the prosecution case by filling up lacuna after closure of evidence when it would prejudice the accused.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
