113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 Sewak Patta ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Ms.Pooja Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed in a case FIR No.111 dated 11.12.2022, registered under Sections 302, 307, 459, 460, 458, 411 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Thermal Bathinda.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been prosecuted in FIR No.111 dated 11.12.2022. It is submitted that earlier the Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner though cross- examined witnesses PW-1 (Nisha Kansal) and PW-3 (Vikas Goyal), however, some relevant questions were not put by him. It is submitted that now the petitioner has changed his counsel and wants to further cross- examine these two witnesses, hence, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the case against the petitioner is for the offence under Section 302 IPC for which minimum sentence is life imprisonment, if charges are proved. She submits that the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are benevolent in nature, however, learned trial Court did not take into consideration and declined the same vide impugned order dated 31.10.2025. She, thus, submits that the petitioner be granted one opportunity to cross-examine the said two witnesses.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the case in hand pertains to a murder trial. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the case is at the stage of examination of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, this Court finds that the petitioner should be allowed to grant one opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as prayed for.

6. There is no gainsaying that the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are sacrosanct in nature and have been incorporated to secure the ends of justice. For resolving the controversy, appreciation of provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are relevant, which read as under:-

“311. Power to summon material witnesses, or examine person present- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

7. From the bare reading of the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the Court has ample power to re-examine or recall any such person whose evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328 held as under:-

“11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section

311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for reexamination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.”

8.