The power to recall witnesses under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and only for strong and valid reasons, and not as a matter of course.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 05.08.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial Court, vide which application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of two prosecution witnesses i.e. PW6 Gurbachan Singh and PW7 Tarlok Singh was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial in FIR No.01 dated 10.01.2013 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B, 380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station NRI Jalandhar. During recording of the prosecution evidence, statement of PW6 Gurbachan Singh was recorded on 29.04.2014 and thereafter, cross-examination of this witness was deferred for 11.06.2014, on which date, the same was completed. This witness had stated that the maternal grandmother of petitioner Jasbir Singh namely Ram Piari, who is parental grandmother of complainant Narinder Pal Singh, had purchased some land and had executed a deed in favour of the complainant and his brother. It is further stated that the petitioner-accused had given some part of the said land on lease to BSNL without permission of the complainant and has committed fraud and destroyed the sale deed. In cross-examination, this witness denied having signed any document as a witness of the deed executed by said Ram Piari. This witness further denied the suggestion that the complainant, in conspiracy with his father Tarlok Singh PW7 and PW6 Gurbachan Singh, had grabbed the share of the petitioner-accused.

3. A perusal of the statement of PW6 shows that no suggestion in the cross-examination of this witness was given with regard to execution of any document and similarly, no document was put to this witness during the cross-examination, allegedly executed by Ram Piari or that the statement of this witness was recorded before any revenue authority.

4. Similarly, PW7 Tarlok Singh, who is father of complainant Narinder Pal Singh, deposed on the same lines. His examination-in-chief was recorded on 06.08.2014 and was deferred on request of defence counsel and on 25.09.2014, the cross-examination was completed. In cross-examination, this witness denied the suggestion that any power of attorney was executed by his sister Nirmal Kaur on 26.03.2007. This witness further stated that while entering of the mutation on the basis of Will of Ram Piari, he was present before the revenue officials. However, this witness in cross-examination deposed as under :-

“I have no knowledge whether Ram Piari my mother has executed any power of attorney in favour of my sister Nirmal Kaur qua the telephone exchange.

Remaining xxxxxxxx is deferred as learned defence counsel moved application for summoning of witness which is allowed only if dasti summons are obtained and got served for 29.09.2014.

At this stage learned counsel for complainant submitted that if the photocopy of mutation No.10377 is exhibited. He also submitted that if some other documents are sought to be summoned, same can be brought by the accused in his defence. The witness stated that he is go back Bhutan. Learned counsel for complainant also submitted that if some record was to be summoned, the application should have been made when the witness was examined in chief. Learned defence counsel stated that he does not want to disclose his defence before starting cross-examination.

Court order: The defence is directed to continue with the cross-examination by confronting the copy of aforesaid documents and in case some other record is required it can be brought by defence.”

5. In further cross-examination, the certified copy of mutation No.10377 was admitted by this witness and was exhibited as Ex.DX. and this witness was confronted with a document Ex.DY dated 05.10.2012 regarding his earlier statement. This witness was further put Ex.P2, a copy of the sale deed, qua which he denied the suggestion that it was a forged and fabricated document.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused examined 0