Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
G. Ramakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
State by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Nagapattinam - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 21163 of 2023
Decided On : 14-09-2023
Recall of Witnesses - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 311 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code - The court discussed the scope and interpretation of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and its discretionary power to summon, examine, or recall witnesses at any stage of the trial. The court emphasized the necessity of exercising this power judiciously and for the just decision of the case. The judgment highlighted the principles related to the exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC, emphasizing that the discretionary power should be exercised for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, facing trial for alleged demand and receipt of illegal gratification, filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses after completing the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court dismissed the petition, leading to the filing of the present Criminal Original Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide a valid reason for recalling the witnesses and had already exhausted the right to cross-examine them. The court emphasized that the discretionary power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and for strong and valid reasons.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application to recall witnesses under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretionary power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and for strong and valid reasons. The petitioner's failure to provide a valid reason for recalling the witnesses led to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.691 of 2023 in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur, dated 29.08.2023.)
1. The petitioner herein facing trial for the alleged demand of Rs.1,000/- and receipt of same on 26.07.2013 as illegal gratification, when the defacto complainant sought financial assistance under the scheme of Farmer Protection for his son's marriage.
2. The prosecution, on completion of investigation, has filed a final report and examination of witnesses was commenced on 11.04.2017. The prosecution has closed their side of examining the witnesses. After completing the examination of Investigating Officer as PW.8, on 04.07.2023, the trial Court has adjourned the matter for questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., regarding incriminating evidence against the accused. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused has filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, on 01.08.2023. After considering the contention raised by the petitioner and the public prosecutor, the trial Court has dismissed the petition to recall the witnesses PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 , PW.7 and PW.8 on the ground that it is a dilative tactics adopted by the petitioner herein to protract the proceedings. Having cross examined his witnesses in depth, the petition to recall without assigning any reason been filed and recalling the witnesses is not the matter of right, but it must be supported by reasoning that failure of justice will occur if the witness/es not recalled.
3. Being aggrieved, the present Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially the case was tried before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, later transferred to Tiruvarur on bifurcation of district that is the reason why there was delay in examining the witnesses. Though PW.1 was examined as early as on 11.04.2017, the rest of the witnesses were examined only after transfer of the case to Tiruvarur Court. Soon after, on completion of examining the witnesses on the side of the prosecution, application to recall five witnesses filed stating that the accused has to establish through these witnesses that he was discharging his official duty involving recovery of money under RR Act and therefore, these witnesses PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.7 and PW.8 are to be recalled and cross examined further in the interest of justice.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State submitted that the petition to recall five witnesses is bereft of reasoning. More so, in the light of the fact that all these witnesses were cross examinated by the accused in depth at length, there is no indication in the application that further examination of these witnesses will throws light to arrive at just conclusion.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the following judgments:-
(i). Ratanlal -Vs- Prahlad Jat & others reported in 2018 AIAR (Criminal) 62.
(ii). The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police -Vs- Tr.N.Seenivasagan reported in 2021 SAR (Cri) 407.
(iii). V.N.Patil -Vs- K.Niranjan Kumar & others reported in 2021 SAR (Cri) 396.
7. On perusing the facts of the case in three judgments, this Court finds that, in Ratanlal -Vs- Prahlad Jat & others reported in 2018 AIAR (Criminal) 62, as a case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition filed by PW.4 and PW.5 to recall them and deposed contrarily to their earlier testimony. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that after supporting the case of the prosecution, eight months later the witnesses themselves have come forward to file a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., stating that they were forced by the prosecution to depose in their favour.
8. The trial Court has observed that, after passage
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretionary power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and for strong and valid reasons, and the petitioner's fa....
The rejection of a request to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC is valid when it is deemed an attempt to prolong proceedings without just cause, emphasizing the need for fair trial principles.
The power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice, and the mere change of counsel is not a valid ground for the recall of a witness.
The court affirmed that the denial to recall a witness based solely on delay violates the accused's right to a fair trial, underscoring the importance of using Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to access es....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of strong and valid reasons for recalling witnesses and the need to exercise the power under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Pro....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
