Courts can allow the recall of witnesses to ensure justice and uphold the discovery of truth, especially when evidence is essential for a fair verdict.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 31.12.2025 which rejects an application of the petitioner-complainant filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 348 of the BNSS.

2. Heard Sri.Shakthidhar S Shanker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sreedhara G.R, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Petitioner is the complainant, respondent-the accused. The two have a transaction. The transaction leads to a dispute. The dispute leads the parties before the concerned Court for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter but an application being filed by the complainant seeking recall of DW.1 for further cross- examination. The application was second in line, therefore, the concerned Court rejects the application on the score that it is preferred only as a ruse to drag the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that if one opportunity is granted, further cross-examination of DW.1 would get complete on the day that the court would fix and would not file any further application on the said score.

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

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused submits that it should be allowed only on exemplary costs. The petitioner is the complainant, files an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The purport of Section 311 need not detain this court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court has interpreted Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in the case of VARSHA GARG v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH , (2023) 19 SCC 646 , and 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”:

(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.

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.

32. 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 recall of a witness by the court as it uses the expression “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”. Essentiality of the evidence of the person who is to be examined coupled with the need for the just decision of the case constitute the touchstone which must guide the decision of the court. The first part of the statutory provision is discretionary while the latter part is obligatory.

33. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni [ Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India , 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 595] while dealing with pari materia provisions of Section 540 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1898 observed : (SCC p. 279, para 16)

“16. The second part