JUDGMENT :

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 06.03.2026, Annexure P-6, vide which application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall PW 13/Witness No.18 Inspector Lakhwinder Singh, Investigating officer, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel contends that on 27.01.2026, cross-examination of the said witness could not be conducted on account of the defence counsel had to go to his home for some personal work. He has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for cross-examination of the said witness, but the same was wrongly dismissed merely on the ground that the same is an attempt to delay the trial. Due to absence of his counsel, the petitioner should not be penalized. An irreparable loss and prejudice is being caused to him. Only one opportunity, which may even be subject to costs, be granted.

3. Notice of motion.

4. At the asking of the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-State and opposes the petition on the ground that trial is at the fag end and the prosecution evidence has been closed as the list of witnesses has exhausted. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application, it being filed at a belated stage and to delay the proceedings.

5. Heard.

6. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to refer Section 311 CrPC, that reads thus:

“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding 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 examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

7. The utilization of powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by the Court serves a specific purpose, which is not to patch up the gaps in the evidence of the prosecution or bolster the case of defence, but rather to unearth the pertinent facts or obtain solid evidence necessary for proper adjudication in the case. The latter part of the section clearly enunciates that any person can be recalled or re-examined, as long as the Court is satisfied that his evidence is essential for a just decision of the case and there might not be miscarriage of justice. Illuminating the provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and powers with the Court, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Godrej Pacific Tech. Limited vs. Computer Joint India Limited, (2008) 11 SCC 108, observed that, “The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code”. It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind.”

8. In context of Section 311 CrPC, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Iddar vs. Aabida, (2007) 11 SCC 211, observed that, “It is couched in the widest possible terms and calls for no