The court confirmed that Section 311 Cr.P.C. allows for recalling witnesses and summoning evidence when essential for a just decision, emphasizing the necessity for careful exercise of this power to avoid prejudicing the defense.

ORDER :

1. Common order dated 10.02.2026 in Crl.M.P.Nos.1/2026 and 2/2026 in C.C.No.35/2014 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam, is under challenge in this petition at the option of accused Nos.5 and 6 in the said case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Perused the common order under challenge and the decisions placed by the learned Public Prosecutor for CBI as well as the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. In this matter, as on 19.12.2025, on completion of examination of PW1 to PW32 and marking of Exts.P1 to P106, after hearing both sides, the learned Special Judge, as per order dated 19.12.2025, had suo motu re-opened the case noticing the fact that Exts.P49 to 51, title deeds, were examined by CW39, the finger print expert, and he also compared the thump impressions of accused Nos.4 to 6 with the thump impressions in the Thump Impression Register kept in the Sub Registrar’s Office, Melattoor, and on finding the necessity for examining the witnesses to prove the same. Pursuant to the said suo motu re-opening, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.1/2026 and Crl.M.P.No.2/2026 and the prayers in the said petitions were to recall PW7 and PW32 (the Investigating Officer) for further examination and also to summon CW29 and an additional witness, Sri. Girish Kumar M. for examination on the prosecution side. The learned Special Judge, after addressing the issue, allowed the application for the reasons stated in paragraph No.8 of the impugned common order and paragraph No.8 of the impugned common order reads as under:

“8. I have considered the submissions made by either side. PWs 1 to 32 were already examined and Exts.P1 to P106 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Both sides submitted their arguments and when the case was posted for further hearing, this Court as per order dated 19.12.2025 has suo-motu re-opened the case, noticing that Exts.P49 to P51, title deeds were examined by CW39, the Finger Print Expert and he also compared the thumb impressions of A4 to A6 with the thumb impressions in the Thumb Impression Register kept in the Sub Registrar’s Office, Melattoor. The report submitted by CW39 and the Thumb Impression Register seized from the Sub Registrar’s Office were produced before Court along with the final report, but not seen marked on the side of the prosecution. Likewise, the thumb impressions of A4 to A6 collected during investigation and sent to CW.39 for examination were not seen produced before Court along with the final report. Further, CW39 is seen wrongly given up by the Prosecutor. Accordingly, this Court has directed the prosecution to produce the specimen thumb impressions of A4 to A6 collected during investigation for subsequent examination of CW39 and marking of documents. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, it is reported by the prosecution that the thumb impressions of A4 to A6 are not traced out, as they are missing from the office. Though thorough search was ordered to be conducted by this Court, there was no positive result. At this stage, the prosecution has filed the present applications. The accused herein are charged by the CBI, with an allegation that the accused Nos. 4 to 6 impersonated themselves as Sebi Sebastian, Joy Chacko and Sijo Francis and executed Exts.P49 to P51, sale deeds, i.e. document Nos.6097/2006, 6098/2006 and 6099/2006 of SRO, Melattoor in the impersonated name referred to above. During investigation, the Thumb Impression Re