https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48079 The Madras HC addressed an apprehended self-incrimination conflict arising where the same person was an accused in one criminal case and a prosecution witness in another. To protect his defence and avoid prejudice between the two proceedings, the Court regulated the sequence of trial. It directed the trial court to take up first the case in which he was an accused and, only after its disposal, proceed with the case in which he was cited as a prosecution witness. The practical effect was to manage overlapping criminal proceedings without allowing one case to impair the other. en-us Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:43:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48079 The Madras HC addressed an apprehended self-incrimination conflict arising where the same person was an accused in one criminal case and a prosecution witness in another. To protect his defence and avoid prejudice between the two proceedings, the Court regulated the sequence of trial. It directed the trial court to take up first the case in which he was an accused and, only after its disposal, proceed with the case in which he was cited as a prosecution witness. The practical effect was to manage overlapping criminal proceedings without allowing one case to impair the other. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48079