Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH
Andeep Agro Feeds through its proprietor – Appellant
Versus
Gurmeet Lal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to dismiss application to recall witness. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court dismisses application for recalling witness. (Para 3) |
| 3. issues surrounding filling lacuna in evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. no illegality found in the trial court's order. (Para 7) |
| 5. dismissal of the revision petition by high court. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, for setting aside and quashing of impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar whereby application filed by the complainant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness i.e. C.A. Jalandhar to prove the statement of account Ex-P5 in complaint bearing No.NACT-2347-2020 titled as ‘Andeep Agro Feeds Vs.Gurmeet Lal’ was dismissed.
2. For the bouncing of cheque bearing No.056769 dated 08.03.2020 for a sum of Rs.9,57,415/-, after completion of the legal formalities, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been instituted by the petitioner/complainant against respondent-Gurmeet Lal. Petitioner/complainant had already filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief and thereupon was
The court ruled that once a party closes its evidence, it cannot subsequently recall witnesses to fill gaps in their case, maintaining trial integrity.
Recall of witnesses should not be allowed in a routine manner, and the discretion to recall witnesses should be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice.
The essentiality of evidence is the touchstone for allowing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., and even if allowing the application amounts to filling up a lacuna, it should not be an absolute....
A party's right to reopen evidence is vital for ensuring fair trial, especially when prior evidence may aid in clarifying crucial facts.
The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the application of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases.
The legal examination emphasized the limitation on revisiting witness testimony post-closure of evidence, balancing judicial efficiency against the right to a fair trial.
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
