#Defence Evidence

The Bombay High Court has held that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice when an accused faces legitimate delays in securing official records from the Income Tax Department. This ruling reinforces that the right to present defence evidence under BNS 528 is not forfeited merely due to administrative timelines, safeguarding fair trial rights in complex financial cases.

Allahabad High Court reaffirms that accused persons have an unconditional right to summon defence witnesses under Section 233 CrPC, striking down trial court orders that denied summons without valid grounds like vexation or delay. The ruling mandates fair trial principles, ensuring defence evidence is not arbitrarily curtailed in criminal proceedings.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that an accused’s right to call defence witnesses cannot be extinguished due to procedural delay unless the trial court has formally closed the defence evidence. This reinforces that procedural fairness under BNSS Section 528 requires courts to preserve the accused’s opportunity to present a complete defence, even if witnesses are sought late in the trial process.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that an accused can rebut the presumption of financial capacity under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act only if the challenge is raised in the statutory notice or during trial. Documentary evidence, such as bank statements, will be admissible solely if this procedural requirement is met, impacting defence strategies in cheque bounce cases.

Madras High Court reiterates that trial courts cannot consider defence documents while deciding discharge petitions under CrPC Section 245. The ruling mandates evaluation of prosecution evidence alone, ensuring procedural fairness in criminal trials and directing trial completion within six months.

Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that closing defence evidence in a cheque dishonour case without prior direction on diet money deposit is illegal, violating fair trial rights. The court set aside the trial court's orders and granted a final opportunity to the accused to present evidence under strict conditions, reinforcing judicial discretion in ensuring procedural fairness.

Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that recalling prosecutrix under Section 348 BNSS is permissible when defence evidence needs confrontation, even post-cross-examination.