TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 the petitioners were entitled to invoke the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to place on record a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and recall the witness after final arguments, or whether the application was rightly rejected as an attempt to fill the lacuna in the evidence.
Analysis: The power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is intended to secure a just decision and may be exercised till judgment is pronounced. The requirement of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is procedural and its absence can, in appropriate cases, be cured during trial. However, the discretion is not unbounded and must be exercised having regard to the stage of the proceedings and the purpose for which the application is made. Here, the petitioner had already filed earlier applications, was aware throughout of the need to prove the tracking report through a certificate, had chosen to rely on the alleged admissions of the respondent, and moved the third application only after final arguments had been concluded and the defect in proof was pointed out. The tracking report itself had not been exhibited. In these circumstances, the application was found to be a belated attempt to fill the evidentiary lacuna rather than a bona fide request to bring essential material on record.
Conclusion: The rejection of the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was upheld and the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought.
TaxTMI 
