https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392993 A High Court commentary on criminal procedure explains that recall and re-examination of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC require strong and valid reasons, and a change of counsel or claimed earlier cross-examination lapse is not enough by itself. It also states that summoning income tax return documents under Section 91 CrPC depends on necessity or desirability for trial, and the trial court's discretion will not be disturbed absent perversity. The same approach applies to requests under Section 243(2) CrPC for forensic examination of a cheque and related material; reopening evidence must rest on clear necessity and bona fide need, not delay. The text concludes that judicial discretion in these matters is protected unless wrongly exercised. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Mar 2020 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392993 A High Court commentary on criminal procedure explains that recall and re-examination of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC require strong and valid reasons, and a change of counsel or claimed earlier cross-examination lapse is not enough by itself. It also states that summoning income tax return documents under Section 91 CrPC depends on necessity or desirability for trial, and the trial court's discretion will not be disturbed absent perversity. The same approach applies to requests under Section 243(2) CrPC for forensic examination of a cheque and related material; reopening evidence must rest on clear necessity and bona fide need, not delay. The text concludes that judicial discretion in these matters is protected unless wrongly exercised. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392993