https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402204 The High Court held that acquittal could not be sustained where the complainant had already been examined, documentary evidence had been marked, and repeated opportunities for cross-examination had been granted, including after allowance of an application under Section 311 CrPC. Because the complainant remained absent despite that opportunity, no recall of the earlier order was sought, and the evidence stood as "no cross" rather than being expunged, the record could not be treated as one of no evidence. The acquittal was therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal on merits, with costs imposed for the complainant's conduct. en-us Mon, 30 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Dec 2020 10:42:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402204 The High Court held that acquittal could not be sustained where the complainant had already been examined, documentary evidence had been marked, and repeated opportunities for cross-examination had been granted, including after allowance of an application under Section 311 CrPC. Because the complainant remained absent despite that opportunity, no recall of the earlier order was sought, and the evidence stood as "no cross" rather than being expunged, the record could not be treated as one of no evidence. The acquittal was therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal on merits, with costs imposed for the complainant's conduct. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402204