Reopening prosecution evidence denied where fair cross-examination was already given and no legal prejudice was shown.

The High Court treated a belated request to reopen prosecution evidence, recall witnesses, and open sealed bags for verification as unwarranted where the defence had already been given a fair opportunity to cross-examine and no legal prejudice was shown. The Court noted that the seized articles were not previously disputed as ganja, and that the proposed recall would merely fill a gap in the defence case rather than correct a genuine omission. Applying the principle that inherent jurisdiction does not justify reopening a trial after an adequate opportunity has been afforded, the Court upheld the refusal to recall witnesses and to permit opening of the seized bags.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders refusing to reopen the prosecution evidence, recall witnesses, and permit opening of the seized bags for verification suffered from legal infirmity warranting interference under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

Analysis: The reliefs sought were examined against the record of the trial court and the stage of the proceedings. The Court noted that the defence had already been afforded reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that the request to cut open the sealed bags was based on a belated challenge, even though there was no prior denial that the seized articles were ganja. The Court also treated the proposed recall as unnecessary where the defence had already been given a fair chance and no prejudice in law was shown. The principles governing correction of genuine omissions do not permit reopening of the trial merely to fill a belated gap in the defence case where the earlier opportunity was adequate.

Conclusion: The refusal to recall the witnesses and to permit opening of the seized bags was upheld, and no interference was called for.

---