Defence evidence may be reopened when both sides share procedural lapse and justice requires one further opportunity on terms.

Where defence witnesses were not examined because of a procedural lapse shared by the accused and the trial court, the interest of justice can justify reopening the defence evidence. The accused had deposited diet money for summoning witnesses, but the record did not clearly show what happened to the earlier process, and the court below had not verified that status. Although the accused was also at fault for not taking fresh steps, denying one further opportunity would not serve the ends of justice. The order closing defence evidence was set aside, and a further opportunity was granted subject to costs and compliance with directions for a fresh witness list and diet money.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order closing the accused's evidence was justified, and whether an additional opportunity should be granted to lead defence evidence with costs.

Analysis: The accused had already deposited diet money for summoning defence witnesses, and the record did not clearly show the fate of the process issued for their appearance. Although there was lapse on the part of the accused in not taking fresh steps, the court below also failed to verify the status of the earlier summons and the deposit made for the witnesses. In these peculiar circumstances, denying further opportunity would not serve the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The order closing the accused's evidence was set aside, and one more opportunity was granted to lead defence evidence, subject to payment of costs and compliance with directions for fresh witness list and diet money.

Ratio Decidendi: Where both the accused and the court contribute to a procedural lapse in summoning defence witnesses, the interest of justice may require granting one further opportunity to lead evidence on terms.

---