Recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. not allowed without new documents after lengthy cross-examination.

Headnote:The petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 challenges the trial court's dismissal of recall application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a cheque dishonour case (S.T.C.No.3227/2023). Petitioner sought to recall PW1 with new documents regarding part payments admitted indirectly in her cross-examination. Court found PW1's chief examination in 2024 and lengthy cross-examination in 2025, with no new documents produced justifying recall. Issue framed: Whether recall of PW1 justified post cross-examination without supporting documents? Ratio: Recall under Section 311 Cr.P.C. not permitted merely on suggestions without evidence of new material, especially after substantial delay and completed cross-examination spanning pages. Criminal Original Petition dismissed; trial court directed to permit defence evidence on 04.05.2026.

Table of Content
1. petition challenges trial court denial of pw1 recall for new documents. (Para 1 , 2)
2. no new documents justify recall after lengthy prior cross-examination. (Para 3)
3. petition dismissed; defence evidence permitted at trial. (Para 4)

ORDER

The petitioner/accused, who is facing trial in S.T.C.No.3227 of 2025 filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall PW1 for the reason that the petitioner came in possession of some documents which has to be cross-examined to PW1. The trial Court not considered the same and dismissed the petition by order dated 23.01.2026. Hence the present petition is filed.

2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the respondent/complainant in her cross-examination admits that it is her husband who was having some transaction with the petitioner and she is not aware about the payments made to her husband, which form part of the cheque which is in dispute in the present case. Hence to putforth this document he needs to recall PW1 and to further cross examine her.

3.On perusal of the records and impugned order, it is seen that in this case PW1 examined in chief on 23.09.2024 and thereafter cross examination conducted in part initially on 24.06.2025. A lengthy cross examination conducted and it runs to 6 pages. It is seen that Chief Examination done in the year 2024, cross examination in the year 2025 and now recall order passed in the year 2026. Further the petitioner is unable to produce any document to show that what is the part payment made and how it is recorded. Except for a suggestion and questioning in the cross examination there is no other document produced, which would have entitled the petitioner to recall PW1. Hence, the trial Court order needs no interference.

4.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the case is posted before the trial Court on 04.05.2026 for defence side evidence. On that day, the petitioner to file a petition to examine defence witnesses to putforth his case, including examination of the petitioner as defence witness if so desired. If such petition is filed, the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to examine the witnesses and produce documents.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASM. NIRMAL KUMAR, JSivakumar Sole Proprietor, M/s.Flag Knits – AppellantVersusSri Mookambika Impex Rep. by its Partner/ Power Agent Kokila – RespondentCRL MP NO. 6608 OF 2026|S.T.C.No.3227 of 2023|Crl.M.P.No.02 of 2025

Recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. not allowed without new documents after lengthy cross-examination.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Sivakumar Sole Proprietor, M/s.Flag Knits – Appellant
Versus
Sri Mookambika Impex Rep. by its Partner/ Power Agent Kokila – Respondent
CRL MP NO. 6608 OF 2026|S.T.C.No.3227 of 2023|Crl.M.P.No.02 of 2025