##PAGE1##

CRM-M-24751-2026 (O&M) -1-

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT

CHANDIGARH

124 CRM-M-24751-2026

Date of Decision: 08.05.2026

ANAYAT KHAN

... Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY.

****

Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. M.S. Atwal, DAG, Punjab.

****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated

16.04.2026, vide which application filed by the petitioner under Section 311

Cr.P.C., to recall a witness for re-examination has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court

has wrongly dismissed the application in question, without taking into

consideration that PW-1 Sunil Kumar, who was the shadow witness, got

examined on 25.04.2025 i.e. prior to the examination of PW-9, the

Investigating Officer, who testified on 30.10.2025, wherein video Ex.DX was

played, that he wants to put to PW-1, it being an essential evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has

rightly passed the impugned order and there is no merit in the instant petition,

thus the same may be dismissed.

4. Heard.

5. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to refer to Section 311

Cr.P.C., which reads thus:

RAJENDER KUMAR

2026.05.12 18:14

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order

CRM-M-24751-2026 (O&M) -2-

“311. Power to summon material witness, 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 re-

examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to

be essential to the just decision of the case.”

6. The utilization of powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by the

Court serves a specific purpose, which is not to patch up the gaps in the

evidence of the prosecution or bolster the case of defence, but rather to

unearth the pertinent facts or obtain solid evidence necessary for proper

adjudication in the case. The latter part of the section clearly enunciates that

any person can be recalled or re-examined, as long as the Court is satisfied

that his evidence is essential for a just decision of the case and there might

not be miscarriage of justice. Illuminating the provision of Section 311

Cr.P.C. and powers with the Court, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Godrej Pacific Tech. Limited vs. Computer Joint India Limited, (2008)

11 SCC 108, observed that, “The object underlying Section 311 of the Code

is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party

in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the

statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative

factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is

not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper

exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the section

merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that

of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all

proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the

RAJENDER KUMAR

2026.05.12 18:14

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order

CRM-M-24751-2026 (O&M) -3-

Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings,

trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is “at

any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code”. It is,

however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide

power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be

exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for

application of judicial mind.”

7. In context of Section 311 Cr.P.C., Hon’ble the Supreme Court in

the case of Iddar vs. Aabi