1987 Supreme(Raj) 752
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
V.S.Dave, J.
Ramavatar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 857 of 1987.
Decided On : 26-08-1987
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Mathur, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.C. Chatterji, P.P.
Principles for recalling witnesses under Section 311 Cr.PC require full and complete reasons, and sound and cogent reasons for resummoning witnesses after a long lapse of time.
Headnote:
Section 311 Cr.PC - Witness Summoning - Principles for Recalling Witnesses
Fact of the Case:
The court reviewed an order directing witnesses to be summoned in a case pending since 1978, without disclosing the purpose or reasons for resummoning them at a belated stage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order lacked specific reasons for recalling the witnesses after a long lapse of time and emphasized the need for sound and cogent reasons for resummoning witnesses.
Issues: Lack of specific reasons for recalling witnesses, principles for dealing with applications under Section 311 Cr.PC
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for full and complete reasons for recalling witnesses after a long lapse of time, and the requirement for sound and cogent reasons for resummoning witnesses.
Final Decision: The order directing the witnesses to be summoned was set aside, and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with the principles laid down.
JUDGMENT
1. - I have gone through the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Alwar,by which he has directed the witnesses to be summoned by his order dated 25-7-1986 in a case which is pending since year 1978. The order does not disclose as to the witnesses were to be examined, for what particular purpose and why it was in the interest of justice to resummon at such a belated stage, when the prosecution evidence was over 5 years before. Change of the Judicial Officer does not mean change of opinion and if the opinion has to be revised, then specific reasons must be disclosed for such change. It is borne out from the order of the learned Magistrate himself that although three witnesses were present in court four years prior to date of passing of this order, yet they had been given up by prosecutor. A properly drafted application should have been filed explaining why the witnesses were first dropped and opinion is being changed. This court has time and again laid down the principles within which the application under Section 311 Cr.PC should be dealt with and it is expected of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to go through them and decide the application assigning full and complete reasons for recalling the witnesses after a long lapse of time clearly showing their relevency, witnesses can not be resummoned only for filling up the lacunas of the prosecution there must be sound and cogent reasons for doing so. The order dated 25th July, 1986 is set aside and the, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with the principles laid down.
2. With the above observations, the application is disposed of.Application disposed of.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document