Back
1994 Supreme(Del) 26
High Court Of Delhi
DIPAK TANDON - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 2318 of 1993
Decided On : 01/12/1994
K.K.Sud, R.D.Jolly
The interests of justice should not be subverted by the mere probability of further delay, and material evidence for the defense should be allowed, despite the prolonged trial.
Headnote:
Recall of Witnesses - Criminal Procedure - The court allowed the petitioner's application to recall witnesses for confrontation with a material document, emphasizing that the mere probability of further delay should not hinder the introduction of material evidence for the defense, as it would subvert the interests of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to recall two witnesses under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to confront them with a deed of compromise, claiming it was material to the defense. The trial judge initially dismissed the application due to the prolonged trial and perceived lack of materiality of the document.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petitioner's application, emphasizing the materiality of the document and the importance of introducing it for the defense, despite the prolonged trial. The court directed the trial judge to ensure prompt cross-examination of the witnesses without adjournment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's application to recall witnesses, the materiality of the document, and the impact of the prolonged trial on the decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the importance of introducing material evidence for the defense, despite the prolonged trial, and the principle that the mere probability of further delay should not hinder the interests of justice.
Final Decision: The petition to recall witnesses was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial judge was directed to ensure prompt cross-examination of the witnesses without adjournment.
( 1 ) THE petitioner moved an application undersection 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling two witnesses. It was claimed that a settlement had been arrived at and a deed of compromise had been executed but since the same was not traceable it could not be put to the witnesses concerned. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application persuaded by the fact that the trial had been lingering on for the last number of years and it was felt that in any case the document in question was not that material.
( 2 ) UNFORTUNATELY, it is true that the trial has been lingering on since long and for that the petitioner too is to be blamed for. However, the fact remains that the petitioner wants the witnesses in question to be confronted with a document which appears to be quite material to the defence set up by him. I feel that mere probability of further delay in the disposal of the matter should not come in the way of something material being brought on the record, for refusal to do so would not serve but would rather subvert the interests of justice. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
( 3 ) I have been assured by Mr. K. K. Sud, appearing for the petitioner that as far as the petitioner is concerned no adjournment would be sought and the witnesses in question would be cross-examined without loss of time. With the hope that this assurance would be adhered to, I direct the learned Trial Judge to see to it that the witnesses are cross-examined as early as possible.
