<?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>2019 (6) TMI 1130 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382053</link>
    <description>Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon, examine or recall witnesses at any stage when the evidence is necessary for a just decision and for discovering the truth. The Bombay HC applied that principle to uphold recall of witnesses and production of additional documents after cross-examination and closure of evidence, where the complainant sought to place on record material said to be relevant to the transaction, including minutes, bank statements and delivery documents. It found that the accused would have a full opportunity to cross-examine the recalled witnesses and that no prejudice would result, so interference with the order was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=576408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 1130 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382053</link>
      <description>Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon, examine or recall witnesses at any stage when the evidence is necessary for a just decision and for discovering the truth. The Bombay HC applied that principle to uphold recall of witnesses and production of additional documents after cross-examination and closure of evidence, where the complainant sought to place on record material said to be relevant to the transaction, including minutes, bank statements and delivery documents. It found that the accused would have a full opportunity to cross-examine the recalled witnesses and that no prejudice would result, so interference with the order was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>