https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313355 The High Court held that inherent writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass the statutory bar after the earlier revision applications against the same interlocutory order had been withdrawn, and no special circumstances showing abuse of process or miscarriage of justice were established. It further held that Section 311 CrPC permits recall and re-examination of witnesses where their evidence is essential to a just decision; the witnesses were eye-witnesses or injured witnesses, their hostility was explained by alleged threats, and the request was not a mere attempt to fill a genuine lacuna. The order allowing recall of the four witnesses was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Apr 2024 15:24:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313355 The High Court held that inherent writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass the statutory bar after the earlier revision applications against the same interlocutory order had been withdrawn, and no special circumstances showing abuse of process or miscarriage of justice were established. It further held that Section 311 CrPC permits recall and re-examination of witnesses where their evidence is essential to a just decision; the witnesses were eye-witnesses or injured witnesses, their hostility was explained by alleged threats, and the request was not a mere attempt to fill a genuine lacuna. The order allowing recall of the four witnesses was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313355