SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(AP) 286

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, V.SIVARAMAN NAIR
Udaya Gowri - Appellant
Versus
A.P.Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 07-22-91

The jurisdictional pre-condition necessary for ordering the recall of witnesses for further cross-examination under S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be satisfied by the Trial Judge.

Headnote:

Recall of Witnesses - Criminal Procedure - The court set aside the order recalling witnesses for further cross-examination as the Trial Judge did not satisfy the jurisdictional pre-condition necessary for ordering such recall under S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a de facto complainant, was examined as P. W. 1. After detailed cross-examination, the respondent first accused filed an application to recall P. Ws. 1 and 6 for further cross-examination, citing that the previous advocate on record could not put some important questions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Trial Judge did not satisfy the jurisdictional pre-condition necessary for ordering the recall of witnesses for further cross-examination under S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Judge had satisfied the jurisdictional pre-condition necessary for ordering the recall of witnesses for further cross-examination under S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for ordering the recall of a witness for further cross-examination, the Trial Judge must be satisfied that such recall and re-examination is essential for a just decision of the case, and this jurisdictional requirement was not satisfied in the impugned order.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order of the Trial Judge recalling P. Ws. 1 and 6 for further cross-examination was set aside. The court directed the trial to proceed expeditiously due to the matter being pending for about six years.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a de facto complainant. She was examined as P. W. 1. After detailed cross-examination, the evidence was closed on 5-6-1990. As a matter of fact, cross-examination was conducted on 22-12-1988, 23-12-1988, 29-12-1988, 2-1-1989, 9-1-1989, 11-1-1989, 12-1-1989, 28-1-1989, 19-1-1989, 20-1-1989 and 24-1-1989 : she was recalled for further cross-examination on 1-6-1990 and 6-6-1990. It is thereafter that the respondent first accused filed an application on 20-3-1991 to recall P. Ws. 1 and 6 for further cross-examination. No reasons are mentioned as to why the Court shall recall witnesses for further cross-examination excepting a vague and general statement that the previous advocate on record, who appeared for the accused, "could not put some important questions" and this caused prejudice to A-1. The Trial Judge passed order "heard. Re-call P. Ws. 1 and 6 on payment of process on 24-4-1991. " Counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirements of S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been adverted to either in the petition which the accused filed, or in the order passed by the Trial Judge.

( 2 ) IT is elementary that for ordering recall of a witness for further cross-examination Trial Judge shall be satisfied that, for a just decision of the case and on a perusal of the evidence of that person that such re-call and re-examination is essential. This we find is a jurisdictional pre-condition necessary for ordering recall of witnesses for further cross-examination under S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Trial Judge has not adverted to this essential jurisdictional requirement in passing the order impugned in these proceedings.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing counsel on both sides, the only course open for us is to allow this petition and set aside the order of the learned Trial Judge recalling P. Ws. 1 and 6 for further Cross-examination.

( 4 ) THE petition is allowed as above. Trial will proceed expeditiously in view of the fact that the matter has been pending for the last about six years.

( 5 ) PETITION allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top