https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271201 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not ordinarily invoked to disturb concurrent orders regulating defence evidence where no legal error or jurisdictional infirmity is shown. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court permitted examination of only three defence witnesses at the stage of the accused's further statement under Section 313 CrPC, and the revisional court affirmed that limitation. On scrutiny of the record, the challenge failed and interference was declined, leaving the orders restricting defence evidence undisturbed. en-us Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jan 2016 10:10:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271201 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not ordinarily invoked to disturb concurrent orders regulating defence evidence where no legal error or jurisdictional infirmity is shown. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court permitted examination of only three defence witnesses at the stage of the accused's further statement under Section 313 CrPC, and the revisional court affirmed that limitation. On scrutiny of the record, the challenge failed and interference was declined, leaving the orders restricting defence evidence undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271201