https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411249 An order refusing adjournment and closing cross-examination of PW1 was treated as interlocutory because it arose during trial, did not determine substantive rights, and therefore was outside revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On writ review, however, the Court found that repeated adjournments, incomplete cross-examination, the advocate's illness, the pandemic period, and the need to balance defence rights with prejudice to the complainant justified restoring one further opportunity. The matter was allowed to proceed subject to costs and a time-bound schedule to complete cross-examination expeditiously. en-us Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2021 08:08:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411249 An order refusing adjournment and closing cross-examination of PW1 was treated as interlocutory because it arose during trial, did not determine substantive rights, and therefore was outside revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On writ review, however, the Court found that repeated adjournments, incomplete cross-examination, the advocate's illness, the pandemic period, and the need to balance defence rights with prejudice to the complainant justified restoring one further opportunity. The matter was allowed to proceed subject to costs and a time-bound schedule to complete cross-examination expeditiously. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411249