Recall of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. not permissible as routine after evidence closure to prevent trial delays.

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 26.03.2026 made in C.M.P.No.19 of 2026 in Special C.C.No.92 of 2014 by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2.1 The petitioner is an accused facing trial in Special C.C.No.92 of

2014 before the learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem, (for short “the Trial Court”) for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2.2 The petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., in C.M.P.No.19 of 2026, seeking to recall P.Ws.2, 6, 8 and 16. However, the trial court, vide order dated 26.03.2026, dismissed the said petition.

Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed the petition in C.M.P.No.19 of 2026 seeking to recall P.Ws.2, 6, 8 and 16, in order to prove his innocence by exposing the fact that no demand was made by the petitioner and that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in processing the renewal application. However, the trial court, without considering the fact that the same is necessary in order to arrive at a fair decision, had dismissed the said petition, vide impugned order dated 26.03.2026, which is not sustainable. He further submitted that if the petitioner is not given an opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses and to mark additional documents, he would be put to a great predicament. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay sufficient costs for recalling witnesses and also undertakes to co-operate for the speedy disposal of the case. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned dismissal order dated 26.03.2026.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

appearing for the respondent submitted that the trial court, after careful consideration of the fact that the above witnesses have already been cross- examined in detail between 2016 and 2018 and that the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., in C.M.P. No.19 of 2026 was filed by the petitioner when the matter was posted for judgment, that too, after a lapse of about 8 years from the date of cross-examination of the above witnesses, which is nothing but a tactic used by the petitioner-accused to delay the trial proceedings, had dismissed the said petition, which cannot be said to be erroneous.

5. This Court gave its careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, it is a case arising out of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.13/AC/2011 was registered as early as on 07.09.2011 and upon completion of the investigation, the final report was filed for the offences set out at paragraph no.2.1, supra in the year 2014.

7. On a perusal of the materials available on record, particularly the impugned order, it is seen that the prosecution has examined witness P.Ws.l to 19 and marked Exs.Pl to P32 and M.Ο.1 to M.O.4. Further, P.W.2, the de facto complainant was examined in chief as early as on 15.12.2015 and she was cross-examined in part on the same day and was cross-examined in detail again on 12.01.2016; P.W.6 was examined in chief on 04.04.2017 and was cross-examined exhaustively on the same day; P.W.8 was examined in chief on 25.07.2017 and he was cross-examined on the very same day; and P.W.16 was examined in chief on 02.01.2018 an