Judicial orders to reopen evidence require explicit justifications; vague reasoning insufficient under procedural standards.

ORDER

Annexure A4 order passed by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kannur, in S.C.No.348/2020 on 27.03.2025, re-opening the evidence and recalling PW1 for further evidence, at a stage when the case stood posted for judgment, is under challenge in this petition filed by the accused in that case under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023. It is contended that the learned Special Judge had not stated any cogent reason for re-opening the evidence and recalling PW1, at a stage when the case stood posted for judgment. 2. It is thus pointed out that the court had re-opened the evidence and proceeded for the further examination of PW1 to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. For the above reason, the order so passed by the learned Special Judge is sought to be quashed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. As it was submitted during the course of arguments that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not get a copy of the formal order passed by the Trial Court recalling PW1, the Registry was directed to call for a printed copy of the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge.

5. As per the letter dated 26.06.2025, the learned Special Judge informed that no separate order was passed to recall PW1. It is further stated in the aforesaid letter that the learned Special Judge was satisfied that some more aspects have to be brought out for the just disposal of the case by the examination of the victim once again, and hence the order was passed vide the proceeding sheet in that case. 6. It is well settled that the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

could be invoked, either suo motu or upon application by the parties, if it is found necessary for the just decision of the case. It is incumbent upon the court concerned to state in the order, the reasons which prompted the court to come to a finding that the recall and further examination of witness concerned were necessary for the just decision of that case.

7. As far as the present case is concerned, the reason which prompted the learned Special Judge to invoke the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C., and to proceed with the further examination of the victim as PW1, at a stage when the case stood posted for judgment, has not been revealed in the order dated 27.03.2025. A casual and superficial remark that some material aspects have not been brought out during trial, is not sufficient for invoking the exceptional powers under Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge ought to have passed a precise, but speaking order stating the reasons why the victim had to be again examined. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, is liable to set aside.

In the result, the order passed by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kannur on 27.03.2025, suo motu reopening the evidence and issuing summons to PW1, is quashed. However, it is made clear that there is no legal impediment for the learned Special Judge to resort to the above course, by passing a speaking order and serving a copy of the same to the defence counsel.