Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Budhi Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M-11385-2015 (O & M)
Decided On : 09-08-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sandeep Katoch, Advocate,, for the Appellant; Mr. Sumit Jain, APP, U.T., Chandigarh, for the Respondent

The court emphasized the wide discretionary power of the court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon or recall witnesses, ensuring the just decision of the case and the discovery of truth.

Headnote:
Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Order - Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Section 3/181 of M.V. Act - 311 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the quashing of an order dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall prosecution witnesses in a case involving Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Section 3/181 of M.V. Act. The petitioner's counsel had noted the wrong date for appearance, leading to missed opportunities for cross-examination.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had missed opportunities for cross-examination due to a clerical error and allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the prosecution witnesses, emphasizing the importance of just adjudication.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted another opportunity for cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, and that the aim of the court is to discover the truth and render a just decision.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed, providing the petitioner with another opportunity for cross-examination.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral). - The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for the quashing of order dated 20.03.2015 (Annexure P-6) whereby the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in case titled as 'State versus Budh Singh' in FIR No.126 dated 22.04.2012 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Section 3/181 of M.V. Act registered with Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh, has dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner for recalling the prosecution witnesses i.e. SI Balbir Singh, I.O. (PW-4) and Dr. Ashok Kumar (PW-3).

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.126 dated 22.04.2012 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Section 3/181 of M.V. Act was registered with Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh, against the petitioner. The Trial proceeded against the accused/petitioner and witnesses were being examined.

3. As per the petitioner, on 22.08.2014, the presence of the petitioner-accused had been exempted and it was in those circumstances that the cross-examination of PW-3/Dr. Ashok Kumar could not take place and was deferred though it was recorded as 'Nil'. The matter stood adjourned from time to time and finally to 05.02.2015. However, inadvertently, the petitioner's counsel is said to have wrongly noted down the date as 06.02.2015. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the copy of the brief and the diary attached as Annexure P-3 and P-4 to the petition.

While the counsel for the petitioner had noted the date wrongly as 06.02.2015, however, unknown to him, on 05.02.2015, the statement of SI Balbir Singh, I.O. was recorded as PW-4 and the cross-examination was shown as 'nil'.

4. It was in these circumstances that an application had been moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the witnesses i.e. PW-3/Dr. Ashok Kumar and PW-4/S.I. Balbir Singh for cross-examination vide application (Annexure P-5).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 20.03.2015 (Annexure P-6) has been passed without actually looking at the record. The Trial Court has wrongly observed that on 22.08.2014, the petitioner-accused was present alongwith his counsel in the Court, and therefore, ought to have cross-examined the witnesses, PW-3 Dr. Ashok Kumar. In fact, the petitioner's presence had been exempted on that date as is clearly borne out from the order dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P-2). He further contends that the accused-petitioner could not appear on 05.02.2015 as he had been told the date was 06.02.2015 due to which SI Balbir Singh, I.O.-PW-4 could not be cross-examined and it was marked as 'Nil Opportunity Given'. He contends that under the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. wide powers are given to the Court to recall or re-examine any witness at any stage for the just adjudication of the case.

6. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand contends that no doubt wide powers are available with the Court to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the court may summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case, however, in the present case, the petitioner had ample opportunities to cross-examine both the witnesses and at this stage, the moving of an application under Section311 Cr.P.C. was nothing but was an attempt to fill up a lacuna in the prosecution case and delay the trial.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

8. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to examine the relevant provisions of law:

Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

'Any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the court shall summon and e