Point of Law: Power to summon material witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which falls under Chapter XXIV containing general provisions as to inquiries and trials has been held to confer a very wide power on courts for summoning witnesses and accordingly discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously as wider power greater is necessity for application of judicial mind.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Respondents.

2. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Court No. 2, Mainpuri in S.T. No. 393 of 2013 (State vs. Manish and Another) arising out of Case Crime No. 407 of 2012, under Sections 452, 302, 364, 201, 34 IPC, P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant has been rejected.

3. While considering the application filed by the accused-applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court has taken notice of the fact that the case was at the stage of final arguments and the witness (PW-1) who was sought to be summoned in terms of the said application had already appeared and had been cross-examined at length by the counsel of the accused-applicant. The trial court on the basis of the aforestated facts has taken a view that in case the accused-applicant wished to impeach the testimony of the PW-1 it would be open for him to do so during the course of final arguments and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at this advanced stage of proceedings was only with a view to cause delay in disposal of the case. The application under section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the witness was accordingly rejected.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the power to summon witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is purely discretionary and in the present case the trial being at the stage of final arguments, the application filed by the applicant/informant could not be said to be bona fide and the court below having exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in the matter no interference was called for.

5. The nature and scope of the power of the court to summon, examine, recall and re-examine any witness in the context of Section 311 Cr.P.C. (and also the corresponding provision as contained in Section 540 of the Old Code of 1898) was subject matter of consideration in Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India and Another, 1991 SCC (Cri) 595 and it was held that the power in this regard is in the widest terms exercisable at any stage so long as the court is in seisin of the proceeding as may be considered essential for a just decision of the case.

6. In U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, (2006) 7 SCC 529 while considering the power of the court to summon material witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. it was opined that the said power can be exercised only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof of facts which may lead to a just and correct decision.

7. The nature, scope and object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. came to be extensively discussed in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 374 and a view was taken that the underlying object of the provision 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.

8. A similar view was reiterated in P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of A.P. (2012) 7 SCC 56 after referring to the earlier decisions in Hoffman Andreas vs. Inspector of Customs, (2000) 10 SCC 430, Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India, 1991 SCC (Cri) 595 and Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, (2012) 5 SCC 370.

9. Considering the scope and object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. in Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741, it was held that the power conferred is to be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection.

10. The nature and scope of the powers to be exercised by the court under Section 311 Cr.P.