9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar [ 2023 (8) TMI 1389 - SUPREME COURT] , a 3-Judge Bench of this Court was of the opinion that Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure should be invoked when '... it is essential for the just decision of the case.' The Court finds that a case for interference has been made out. Under the peculiar facts of the present case, the request for recall of the Appellant Under Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure was justified, as at the relevant point of time in his initial deposition, there was no occasion for him to bring the relevant facts relating to similarity of data before the Court, which arose after the CFSL expert was examined. The orders of the Courts below are set aside. The application of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as examined on 20.08.2021 by the Court, though he described the data which was found on the hard disk(s) of the Accused, but there was no reference as to whether they were comparable to/same in regard to what was allegedly stolen from the Appellant's company. Thus, under the circumstances, the Appellant was constrained to apply for his recall as a witness, which was done within five days of the evidence of the CFSL expert being recorded i.e., on 25.08.2021. The same having been rejected, by the Trial Court and the High Court, the matter is before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there was no previous occasion for him during the course of the trial to put any question with regard to comparison of data as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e just decision of the case] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the CrPC ) has engaged this Court's attention before. We will advert to a few decisions of recent vintage. While overturning an order of the High Court allowing an application for recall of a witness, which was rejected by the trial Court, this Court held as under, in Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat (2017) 9 SCC 340: 17. In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 8], this Court has considered the concept underlying under Section 311 as under: (SCC p. 392, para 27) 27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The Section is not limited only for the benefit of the Accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the Section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the Accused. The Section is a general Section whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced carefully with the other relevant considerations including uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in the trial. Having regard to these considerations, there is no ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined. 21. The delay in filing the application is one of the important factors which has to be explained in the application. In Umar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan [Umar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 14 SCC 711 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 244], this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 719, para 38) 38. Before parting, however, we may notice that a contention has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that PW 1 who was examined in Court on 5-7-1994 purported to have filed an application on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part, which is mandatory, imposes an obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. 11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this Section to even rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
