<?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>2008 (7) TMI 969 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175156</link>
    <description>Section 311 CrPC gives a wide discretion to summon, recall and re-examine witnesses at any stage, and its mandatory limb applies where the evidence is essential to a just decision. The provision is aimed at preventing failure of justice, bringing valuable evidence on record, and removing ambiguity in testimony. The court must exercise the power judiciously with the object of reaching the truth; the mere possibility that additional evidence may incidentally fill a gap in a party&#039;s case is not, by itself, a valid ground to refuse recall. On this approach, refusal to recall the witnesses was improper and the application ought to have been allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 969 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175156</link>
      <description>Section 311 CrPC gives a wide discretion to summon, recall and re-examine witnesses at any stage, and its mandatory limb applies where the evidence is essential to a just decision. The provision is aimed at preventing failure of justice, bringing valuable evidence on record, and removing ambiguity in testimony. The court must exercise the power judiciously with the object of reaching the truth; the mere possibility that additional evidence may incidentally fill a gap in a party&#039;s case is not, by itself, a valid ground to refuse recall. On this approach, refusal to recall the witnesses was improper and the application ought to have been allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175156</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>