https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213260 Costs imposed on the prosecuting agency in criminal proceedings could not be directed to be paid to the accused in the absence of a specific legal basis; the amount was instead required to be deposited with the legal services committee. Closure of the prosecution evidence was upheld because sufficient opportunities, including a final opportunity, had already been granted, and the accused's Article 21 right to a speedy trial justified refusing further delay. The allowance of an application under Section 311 did not relieve the prosecuting agency of its duty to produce witnesses. The challenge failed on the evidence issue and succeeded only on the limited question of costs. en-us Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 15:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213260 Costs imposed on the prosecuting agency in criminal proceedings could not be directed to be paid to the accused in the absence of a specific legal basis; the amount was instead required to be deposited with the legal services committee. Closure of the prosecution evidence was upheld because sufficient opportunities, including a final opportunity, had already been granted, and the accused's Article 21 right to a speedy trial justified refusing further delay. The allowance of an application under Section 311 did not relieve the prosecuting agency of its duty to produce witnesses. The challenge failed on the evidence issue and succeeded only on the limited question of costs. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213260