Section 311 Cr.P.C. recall allowed for post-settlement evidence verification if genuine, despite delay.

C O M M O N O R D E R

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to set aside the orders passed in Crl M.P. Nos.22 & 23 of 2026 in C.C. No.27 of 2012 dated 07-03- 2026 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner /

accused, who is facing trial in C.C.No.27 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall PW.348, PW.383, PW.425, PW.456 and PW.457 for the purpose of proving that, subsequent to the cross examination conducted in the year 2017, the amount due to them had been settled and they had also issued acknowledgment receipts for the same. In order to confirm the same through the witnesses, the petitioner sought to file the said petition, however, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the present petitions have been filed.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that in this case, the case was initially registered in the year 2012 in Crime No.2 of 2012 and thereafter final report was filed. During trial, PW.1 to PW.512 were examined and Exs.P1 to P1652 were marked. The petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and thereafter, DW1 to DW5 were examined. There are totally three accused in this case. The prosecution had completed its arguments. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner / A2 filed the petition. The trial Court found that the chief examination of the said witnesses had been completed in the 2017 and that for nearly eight years, the petitioner had remained silent. The Court further held that filing the present petition at this stage was nothing but to further protract the proceeding and therefore, the same was rightly dismissed.

4. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner in his additional typed set, has produced the receipts and copies of the same have also been furnished to the police. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the genuineness of these documents would be verified by the respondent police and reported before the trial Court, which may consider the same. It was further submitted that if the settlements are found to be genuine and not disputed, the prosecution would have no objection to the said documents being considered in evidence at the time of arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the chief examination was conduced in the year 2017 and that the settlement took place in the year 2020, thereafter, due to Covid-19 pandemic, there was disruption in the functioning of the Courts, resulting in some delay.

5. Considering all these aspects, this Court directs the respondent police to verify the receipts produced by the petitioner with the concerned witnesses and if found to be genuine, to submit a report before the trial Court at the time of arguments. The trial Court shall consider the same at the time of rendering judgment.

6. With the above directions, these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.