The power under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses is discretionary, designed to secure the ends of justice by allowing necessary evidence at any stage of the trial. Interlocutory orders permitting such recall are generally not subject to interference unless they are demonstrably perverse or cause significant procedural injustice.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, in Crl.M.P.No.1603 of 2025 in C.C.No.111 of 2013, dated 15.12.2025.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking to recall and re-examination of P.W.10, the Investigating Officer, for the limited purpose of marking a particular portion of the alleged confession statement said to have been omitted earlier during his examination.

3. The petitioner, who figures as Accused No.1 in the calendar case, challenges the legality of the said order on the ground that the proposed re-examination is belated, unnecessary, and intended only to mark an inadmissible inculpatory portion of the confession.

4. The respondent-State, on the other hand, would contend that the portion sought to be marked is one which led to discovery of a relevant fact and that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973, can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of a just decision.

Case of the prosecution:

5. The case relates to an occurrence of theft, in respect of which the First Information Report came to be registered on 25.05.2009. Upon completion of investigation, the respondent police laid the final report in the year 2012.

6. The learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.111 of 2013. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. The examination of P.W. 10 was completed on 22.04.2021. Thereafter, the matter progressed further and was ultimately posted for arguments.

7. At that stage, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.1603 of 2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking recall and re-examination of P.W.10 for the purpose of marking a specific portion of the confession statement allegedly made by the accused. According to the prosecution, though the said portion had relevance to the case and had allegedly led to a material recovery, the same was omitted to be marked earlier due to inadvertence.

8. The said portion of the confession, which the prosecution seeks to mark through P.W.10, is extracted below:

9. The learned Magistrate, upon considering the rival submissions, allowed the said petition by order dated 15.12.2025, holding that the portion sought to be marked is relevant for the just adjudication of the case and that no prejudice would be caused to the accused, since the accused would have opportunity to cross- examine the witness on recall. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Grounds for quash:

10. The principal grounds raised by the petitioner are two-fold. Firstly, it is contended that the prosecution has approached the trial Court at a highly belated stage after closure of evidence and when the matter was posted for arguments, thereby adopting an impermissible eleventh-hour strategy to fill up lacunae in the prosecution case.

11. Secondly, it is argued that the portion of the confession sought to be marked is wholly inculpatory in nature and therefore inadmissible in evidence. According to the petitioner, the statement does not contain any legally admiss