https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398946 The HC reiterated that Section 311 CrPC confers a wide but judicially controlled power to summon witnesses or documents, and it may be exercised only where the proposed evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. Because the applicant did not explain why the bank employee was required, did not identify the documents sought, and failed to show their necessity for the defence, the trial court was justified in rejecting the request. The rejection was therefore upheld, as speculative or unsupported summons cannot be used to secure evidence without demonstrating its relevance and essentiality. en-us Tue, 12 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Sep 2020 06:23:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398946 The HC reiterated that Section 311 CrPC confers a wide but judicially controlled power to summon witnesses or documents, and it may be exercised only where the proposed evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. Because the applicant did not explain why the bank employee was required, did not identify the documents sought, and failed to show their necessity for the defence, the trial court was justified in rejecting the request. The rejection was therefore upheld, as speculative or unsupported summons cannot be used to secure evidence without demonstrating its relevance and essentiality. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398946