https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46767 An order closing pre-charge evidence that directly affects the accused's right not to be tried is not merely interlocutory; once affirmed in revision, it attains finality and cannot be reopened in a later proceeding. A witness statement does not amount to legal evidence unless the witness is fully cross-examined, so an incomplete examination-in-chief could not be relied upon against the accused. A successor Additional Sessions Judge could not unsettle final orders of a coordinate court or invoke Section 311 CrPC suo motu in the absence of a prosecution request. The revisional order was set aside and the earlier closure of evidence and discharge were restored. en-us Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:54:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46767 An order closing pre-charge evidence that directly affects the accused's right not to be tried is not merely interlocutory; once affirmed in revision, it attains finality and cannot be reopened in a later proceeding. A witness statement does not amount to legal evidence unless the witness is fully cross-examined, so an incomplete examination-in-chief could not be relied upon against the accused. A successor Additional Sessions Judge could not unsettle final orders of a coordinate court or invoke Section 311 CrPC suo motu in the absence of a prosecution request. The revisional order was set aside and the earlier closure of evidence and discharge were restored. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46767