IMPORTANT POINT
The salutary provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are enacted giving enormous and wide discretion to the court to call for any witness to the court or recall any of the witness already examined in order to ascertain the truth or falsity of the case.

ORDER

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HGCP.

2. Perused the records, specifically the order impugned in this petition.

3. The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru sitting at Anekal, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to cross-examine PWs. 1 to 6 and 9 in S.C. No.5003/2015. The learned Sessions Judge by a detailed order has rejected the said application.

4. On careful perusal of the order, though the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon various rulings, but those rulings only state about the principles, but one should bear in mind that the application for recalling of witnesses has to be tested from the surrounding facts and circumstances of each case and not by just quoting the principles laid down by various courts. Without testing the application with the materials on record, simply to reject such application is not acceptable. The Court also should see whether the court can shut the doors of the court permanently to the accused when particularly the accused is languishing in jail. Further, added to that the court has to consider the factual aspects narrated in the application. Without considering the factual aspects and also the surrounding circumstances, merely relying upon the principles laid down by certain rulings would not meet the ends of justice.

5. The object and scope of the provision of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has to be mainly borne in mind by the courts before passing the orders on the provisions. The main object of this provision is to enable the Court to find out the truth and render a just decision in a given case. The salutary provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are enacted giving enormous and wide discretion to the court to call for any witness to the court or recall any of the witness already examined in order to ascertain the truth or falsity of the case. The aid of this Section should be invoked in order to discover the relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such facts for a just and proper decision. However, the provision cannot be used for the purpose of supporting capricious attitude of the person who makes such application. It should not be used for filling up the lacuna of the cases against each other. Therefore, the object of the provision is to do justice. In that context, the vide discretion given to the court should be understood. The jurisdiction of the court under this Section must obviously be considered on the exigency of the situation, fair- play and good sense. These guidelines appear to be the only the safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command, the examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

6. The reading of the above said provision itself shows that it gives a wide discretionary power to the court. The words used such as ‘any court’, ‘at any stage’, or ‘or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings’, ‘any person’ and ‘any such person’ clearly spells out that the Section is expressed in the widest possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the court or creates any barrier to the courts in exercising such discretion. However, the court should come to a conclusion that, allowing of the party to examine a witness or cross examine a witness already examined, should be bonafide and it is based on circumstances. Though on one or two occasions, the accused may commit default in not cross examining the witnesses. The court should be alive to look into the surrounding circumstances and even such default by the accused can also be corrected by imposing certain stringent conditions and also terms. The ultimate goal of the court is to render just decision in the case and to prevent a failure of justice.

7. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not in detail considered the factual aspects of this case. In this background, now let me consider the factual aspects of this case in detail:

8. The trial C