<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1967 (4) TMI 197 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169369</link>
    <description>Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is described as conferring a wide power on a criminal court, at any stage of inquiry or trial, to summon, examine, recall or re-examine a witness when the evidence is essential for a just decision. The text explains that this power is not cut down merely because the defence has closed its case or because the evidence may incidentally support the prosecution, so long as it is not used to unfairly fill a lacuna. Applied to the customs prosecution discussed, the later examination of the customs officer was treated as properly admitted evidence, and the conviction under the Customs Act was said to rest on sufficient admissible material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:41:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (4) TMI 197 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169369</link>
      <description>Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is described as conferring a wide power on a criminal court, at any stage of inquiry or trial, to summon, examine, recall or re-examine a witness when the evidence is essential for a just decision. The text explains that this power is not cut down merely because the defence has closed its case or because the evidence may incidentally support the prosecution, so long as it is not used to unfairly fill a lacuna. Applied to the customs prosecution discussed, the later examination of the customs officer was treated as properly admitted evidence, and the conviction under the Customs Act was said to rest on sufficient admissible material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169369</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>