https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180333 In a warrant-trial complaint under the Customs Act, 1962, the court applied the procedure under Sections 244 and 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and held that post-charge evidence cannot be reopened as a matter of course. Repeated delay and defaults in producing witnesses meant the prosecution could not use Section 311 CrPC to fill a lacuna or introduce fresh evidence after valid closure of evidence. The right to speedy trial under Article 21 also weighed against further delay. The prayer to examine additional witnesses was rejected, and the trial court's closure of evidence was sustained. en-us Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 May 2016 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180333 In a warrant-trial complaint under the Customs Act, 1962, the court applied the procedure under Sections 244 and 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and held that post-charge evidence cannot be reopened as a matter of course. Repeated delay and defaults in producing witnesses meant the prosecution could not use Section 311 CrPC to fill a lacuna or introduce fresh evidence after valid closure of evidence. The right to speedy trial under Article 21 also weighed against further delay. The prayer to examine additional witnesses was rejected, and the trial court's closure of evidence was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180333