The court emphasized the broad powers under Section 311 of the CrPC to summon or recall witnesses at any stage if their evidence is essential for a just decision.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 05.08.2022 by which an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. comes to be rejected in C.C.No.36714/2011.

2. Heard Sri. Muniyappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in crime No.24/2011 for offences punishable under Sections 5, 41(A)(B) of Karnataka Levadevi Act, 1961, Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Money Laundering Act, 2004 and Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the matter or the defence of the prosecution.

4. The petitioner files an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking recall of CW3 on 28.07.2022. The learned Magistrate rejects the application on 05.08.2022. This is called in question by the petitioner before the Court of Sessions in Crl.R.P.424/2022, which comes to be rejected by the Court of Session on 25.09.2024. It is this that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no opportunity to examine CW3. Therefore, it is imperative that he is permitted to be examined. He would submit that if one opportunity is granted, he would examine him and close the proceedings insofar it is concerned, as he is the complainant on the said date itself.

6. The learned Additional SPP submits that the application so preferred by the prosecution seeking examination of CW3, as the necessary to prove the offences against the accused. The same could not have been rejected in the teeth of the reason so rendered to file the said application.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.

8. The afore quoted facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is the complainant. The respondent is the accused. The accused gets embroiled in a crime in crime No.24/2011 for the said offences on a complaint registered by the petitioner on 29.01.2011. During the proceedings, the prosecution files an application under Section 311 seeking examination of CW3. This comes to be rejected on the ground that the matter is at the stage of recording of 313 statement.

9. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court in rejecting the application filed by the prosecution to examine CW3 was not at all examined, which runs foul of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of VARSHA GARG Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1, wherein it has held as follows:

"31. Having clarified that the bar under Section 301 is inapplicable and that the appellant is well placed to pursue this appeal, we now examine Section 311 of CrPC. Section 311 provides that the Court “may”:

2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 (i) Summon any person as a witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; and (ii) Recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined.

32. This power can be exercised at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC. The latter part of Section 311 states that the Court “shall” summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person “if his evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case”. Section 311 contains a power upon the Court in broad terms. The statutory provision must be read purposively, to achieve the intent of the statute to aid in the discovery of truth.

33. The first part of the statutory provision which uses the expression “may” postulates that the power can be exercised at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The latter part of the provision mandates the r