https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47132 The High Court treated a belated request to reopen prosecution evidence, recall witnesses, and open sealed bags for verification as unwarranted where the defence had already been given a fair opportunity to cross-examine and no legal prejudice was shown. The Court noted that the seized articles were not previously disputed as ganja, and that the proposed recall would merely fill a gap in the defence case rather than correct a genuine omission. Applying the principle that inherent jurisdiction does not justify reopening a trial after an adequate opportunity has been afforded, the Court upheld the refusal to recall witnesses and to permit opening of the seized bags. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:41:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47132 The High Court treated a belated request to reopen prosecution evidence, recall witnesses, and open sealed bags for verification as unwarranted where the defence had already been given a fair opportunity to cross-examine and no legal prejudice was shown. The Court noted that the seized articles were not previously disputed as ganja, and that the proposed recall would merely fill a gap in the defence case rather than correct a genuine omission. Applying the principle that inherent jurisdiction does not justify reopening a trial after an adequate opportunity has been afforded, the Court upheld the refusal to recall witnesses and to permit opening of the seized bags. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47132