https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174866 Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to require the prosecution to produce the evidence under Section 244 within the stipulated period, and the right to discharge arises only on failure of such production. Where the complainant repeatedly produced witnesses on the fixed dates but their examination was delayed because the Presiding Officer was unavailable, transferred, or a successor had not joined, the delay was treated as attributable to the Court and not to any lack of diligence by the complainant. The expression "produce" was distinguished from actual examination, so the accused could not claim discharge merely because the witnesses were not examined within four years. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:07:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174866 Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to require the prosecution to produce the evidence under Section 244 within the stipulated period, and the right to discharge arises only on failure of such production. Where the complainant repeatedly produced witnesses on the fixed dates but their examination was delayed because the Presiding Officer was unavailable, transferred, or a successor had not joined, the delay was treated as attributable to the Court and not to any lack of diligence by the complainant. The expression "produce" was distinguished from actual examination, so the accused could not claim discharge merely because the witnesses were not examined within four years. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174866