https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424958 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the HC upheld refusal to allow the accused to adduce additional evidence under Section 311 CrPC because such power is exercised only when evidence is necessary to meet the ends of justice. The loan transaction, issuance of the cheques, and the accused's signatures were admitted, and the proposed evidence on alleged fraud, mortgage arrangements, and loan rescheduling was not found necessary in summary proceedings. Repeated applications were treated as indicative of delay, and the order refusing additional evidence was sustained. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jul 2022 07:46:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424958 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the HC upheld refusal to allow the accused to adduce additional evidence under Section 311 CrPC because such power is exercised only when evidence is necessary to meet the ends of justice. The loan transaction, issuance of the cheques, and the accused's signatures were admitted, and the proposed evidence on alleged fraud, mortgage arrangements, and loan rescheduling was not found necessary in summary proceedings. Repeated applications were treated as indicative of delay, and the order refusing additional evidence was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424958