<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (9) TMI 648 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310215</link>
    <description>Section 311 CrPC permits summoning, recalling or re-examining a witness either as a discretionary power or, in its second limb, where the witness&#039;s evidence is essential to a just decision. A summons order passed under the discretionary limb may be interfered with if it is unnecessary and results in failure of justice. The text notes that where the prosecution evidence was already closed, the accused had been examined, and the matter stood fixed for final arguments, reopening the trial would be unjustified and contrary to the objective of completing a session trial in one session. The impugned summoning order was therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:22:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 648 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310215</link>
      <description>Section 311 CrPC permits summoning, recalling or re-examining a witness either as a discretionary power or, in its second limb, where the witness&#039;s evidence is essential to a just decision. A summons order passed under the discretionary limb may be interfered with if it is unnecessary and results in failure of justice. The text notes that where the prosecution evidence was already closed, the accused had been examined, and the matter stood fixed for final arguments, reopening the trial would be unjustified and contrary to the objective of completing a session trial in one session. The impugned summoning order was therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>