Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.
Central Bureau of Investigation - Appellant
Versus
Ravinder Singh @ Ravinder Singh Bhasin and Others - Respondents
CRM-M No. 5959 of 2025
Decided On : 17-02-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Evidence and Procedure
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.161, S.164, S.311, S.313, S.319
EVIDENCE ACT: S.165, S.65(b)
Headnote
(B) Procedural Law - Jurisdiction of courts - The powers under Section 311 should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily; allowing additional evidence must not jeopardize the accused's rights to a fair trial. Repeated applications under Section 311 cannot be dismissed out of hand without considering their merits. (Paras 19, 24, 30)
Facts of the case:
The CBI challenged the dismissal of its application to call 22 additional witnesses crucial for their case after significant delays, arguing that the denial impeded the pursuit of truth.
Findings of Court:
The Court partially allowed the petition, permitting the examination of select witnesses deemed essential for a just adjudication, while dismissing requests related to over twenty other witnesses for lack of demonstrated relevance.
Issues: The main issues included whether the additional witnesses sought were indeed necessary for just decision-making and whether the delay in the prosecution's applications was justifiable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the breadth of Section 311 Cr.P.C. permits the inclusion of necessary evidence at any stage, and the need for a fair trial must balance procedural efficiency with the pursuit of truth.
Result: Petition partially allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
Akashdeep Singh, G.C. Shahpuri, Sangram S. Saron, Madhavrao Rajwade, S.K. Garg Narwana, Vishal Garg Narwana
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the dismissal of application under section 311 cr.p.c. (Para 1) |
| 2. initial incident and fir details. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments from both parties on witness examination. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. necessity of witnesses for a just decision of the case. (Para 12) |
| 5. legal scope of section 311 cr.p.c. discussed. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. balancing rights of prosecution and accused under section 311 cr.p.c. (Para 20 , 24) |
| 7. need for witness credibility and legitimate requirements. (Para 21 , 22 , 25) |
| 8. decision to permit examination of specified witnesses. (Para 28) |
| 9. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.
1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.10.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh, whereby its application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to examine 22 prosecution witnesses, was dismissed.
2. The case originates from an FIR initially registered by the Chandigarh Police on 16.08.2008, which reads as under:-
“Sir, it is submitted that I Amrik Singh, am working as Peon in Camp office of Justice Nirmaljeet Kaur. Yesterday i.e. on 13.08.2008 at around 08.30 pm at night, Guard Guruvinder Singh rang the bell and told that some person has come. I went to the gate and saw that one Munshi, Prakash, whom I know, was there. He was holding one plastic bag in his hand. He told me that the papers have come from Delhi which are to be delivered inside. Without checking the bag I came inside and told this to Madamji. Madamji asked me to check as to what were those papers. When I opened the bag I found currency notes in it. Then Madamji scolded me and asked me to catch the person who had come with that bag. I immediately ran and came outside and Madamji also accompanied me. I told Guard Guruvinder to catch hold of Prakash Munshi who was already held up by Gurvinder. Madamji told Guruvinder to call the police at 100 no. and get him apprehended. Then Guard Guruvinder made a phone call and after few minutes police arrived outside the kothi and took Prakash Munshi and currency notes along with them. I am giving you a written information about this incident. Sd/- Amrik Singh, Office Camp peon, H. No. 188, Sector 11. Chandigarh, dated 14.8.2008.”
3. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by an order dated 26.08.2008 of Gen. (Retd.) S.F. Rodrigues, Government of Punjab and Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 18.04.2011. Learned Special Court framed charges against the accused vide order dated 18.01.2014.
4. Initially, the prosecution cited 84 witnesses, out of which only 69 witnesses were examined. During the trial, the prosecution moved two applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which were disposed of by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 01.12.2021.
5. The first application seeking permission to produce a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872, was allowed. The second application seeking examination of the Judicial Magistrate concerned, to prove the statement of PW-33 Jai Parkash Rana, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was, however, rejected.
6. Thereafter, another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution, seeking re-examination of PW-43 Pankaj Bhardwaj on the ground that his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not put to him during his testimony. This application was dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2022. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was formally closed on 07.09.2022.
7. Subsequently, on 27.09.2022, the prosecution moved the application in question under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to examine 22 additional witnesses, which was dismissed by the learned Special Court vide impugned order dated 15.10.2022 (Annexure P-6). Aggrieved by this order, the CBI has approached this Court.
Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner
