2018 (11) TMI 497 - HC - Indian Laws

Scope and ambit of Section 311 Cr.P.C. - calling upon to produce pronote acknowledging the receipt of the borrowed amount - Held that - Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been enacted to enable the Court to find the truth and render a just decision whereunder any Court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings can summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined, who is expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute - The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. Yet, this power has to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons that too with care, caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the Court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. The execution of the pronote does stand established, but whether the same was, in fact, executed or not or whether the pronote is the same pronote as is alleged to have been executed is a matter of trial and this Court would refrain from giving any definitive opinion upon the same. However, what appears to have clearly been ignored by the learned trial Court while rejecting the application is the salutary provision of Section 311 is that it has failed to adhere to the well known adage that every trial is a voyage in which quest for truth is the goal. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
2. Scope and ambit of Section 311 Cr.P.C.
3. Execution and admissibility of pronote in the trial.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to produce a pronote, which was initially not traceable. The trial court rejected this application, reasoning that admitting the document at this stage would prejudice the accused, especially since the accused had already disclosed his evidence. The High Court, however, found that the trial court failed to adhere to the principle that every trial is a quest for truth. The High Court emphasized that the rejection overlooked the importance of Section 311 Cr.P.C., which aims to ensure a fair trial by allowing the court to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence is essential for a just decision.

2. Scope and ambit of Section 311 Cr.P.C.:
Section 311 Cr.P.C. allows any court at any stage of an inquiry, trial, or other proceeding to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The High Court referenced multiple Supreme Court decisions to elucidate the principles governing Section 311. It was highlighted that the section is expressed in the widest possible terms, giving the court broad discretionary power, which must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. The court must ensure that the exercise of this power is not used to fill gaps in the prosecution's case or to the disadvantage of the accused.

3. Execution and admissibility of pronote in the trial:
The petitioner argued that the pronote was mentioned in an agreement already on record, thus establishing its execution prima facie. The High Court noted that while the execution of the pronote is a matter for trial, the trial court should have considered the provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. to ascertain the truth. The High Court stressed that the trial court's role is to ensure that all relevant evidence is considered to achieve a just decision, and the exclusion of the pronote would hinder this objective.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court's order rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The High Court reiterated the importance of Section 311 in ensuring a fair trial and the quest for truth, emphasizing that judicial officers must strive to ascertain the truth in every matter.