Finality of evidence closure blocks suo motu reopening; incomplete cross-examination cannot be treated as reliable evidence.

An order closing pre-charge evidence that directly affects the accused's right not to be tried is not merely interlocutory; once affirmed in revision, it attains finality and cannot be reopened in a later proceeding. A witness statement does not amount to legal evidence unless the witness is fully cross-examined, so an incomplete examination-in-chief could not be relied upon against the accused. A successor Additional Sessions Judge could not unsettle final orders of a coordinate court or invoke Section 311 CrPC suo motu in the absence of a prosecution request. The revisional order was set aside and the earlier closure of evidence and discharge were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order closing pre-charge evidence and the consequent discharge order were interlocutory in nature or had attained finality; (ii) whether incomplete examination-in-chief without full cross-examination could be treated as evidence; (iii) whether a successor Additional Sessions Judge could reopen and set aside orders passed by the predecessor court and invoke Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 suo motu.

Issue (i): whether the order closing pre-charge evidence and the consequent discharge order were interlocutory in nature or had attained finality.

Analysis: An order that affects the right to prosecute and the corresponding right of the accused not to be put on trial is not a purely interim step in aid of the proceedings. Closure of pre-charge evidence directly determined the prosecution's ability to proceed and led to the accused's discharge. Once the earlier revision affirmed that closure, the matter acquired finality and could not be reopened through a later revision against the discharge order.

Conclusion: The closure order was not interlocutory and had attained finality in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether incomplete examination-in-chief without full cross-examination could be treated as evidence.

Analysis: Evidence in a criminal trial comprises the examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and, where applicable, re-examination. A witness statement does not attain the status of legal evidence unless the witness is available for full cross-examination, because the credibility of the testimony cannot otherwise be tested. A partially recorded statement, where cross-examination remained incomplete, could not be relied upon to support the charge or to prove the accused's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The incomplete statement of the witness could not be treated as evidence and was not available for reliance against the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether a successor Additional Sessions Judge could reopen and set aside orders passed by the predecessor court and invoke Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 suo motu.

Analysis: A court of concurrent jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over the order of a coordinate court, nor can it unsettle orders not brought in challenge before it. After the earlier closure order and revisional affirmation had attained finality, the successor court had no jurisdiction to criticise or set aside those orders. The power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is discretionary and judicially exercised on the basis of sufficient material, ordinarily at the instance of a party seeking recall or summoning of a witness. In the absence of any request from the prosecution and in the face of final orders already affirmed, suo motu reopening was impermissible.

Conclusion: The successor court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter or direct invocation of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its order was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was set aside, and the earlier closure of evidence and discharge of the accused stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An order closing evidence that determines the accused's right not to be tried is not interlocutory; once such an order is affirmed and attains finality, a coordinate successor court cannot reopen it suo motu or treat an incomplete witness statement as evidence without full cross-examination.

---