Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Court's Power to Recall Witness - The courts have inherent and statutory powers to recall and re-examine witnesses at any stage of inquiry, trial, or proceedings to ensure justice and prevent failure thereof. This power is exercised judiciously and not as a matter of routine. It can be invoked either on the court's own motion or on an application by parties. The primary aim is to fill lacunae or clarify evidence, but such recall should be justified by tangible reasons, not merely for convenience or delay ["Khalid @ Khalli VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Bhimsen Ojha vs Samuel Devashish James - Orissa"], ["Mir Kasim vs Dhoi Datti - Orissa"], ["Karthik S. Nair, S/o. Suresh Kumar VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - Kerala"].
Conditions and Limitations - The discretion to recall witnesses is limited; it must be exercised carefully to avoid prejudice or harassment. Applications for recall are to be supported by proper reasons; vague or insufficient grounds are typically rejected. Courts have emphasized that recall is not automatic and should be used sparingly, especially to prevent abuse or unnecessary delay ["Kamtadas vs Keshavdas Alias Krishnanand Brahman - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Bhimsen Ojha vs Samuel Devashish James - Orissa"], ["Kurian Energiekanri India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of NCT of Delhi - Delhi"], ["Karthik S. Nair, S/o. Suresh Kumar VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - Kerala"].
Judicial Prudence and Precedents - Courts have consistently held that the power to recall witnesses is to be exercised in exceptional cases, such as when evidence was not properly recorded, or cross-examination was incomplete, or when new facts emerge that are crucial for a fair trial. The decision to recall must be based on concrete reasons, and mere assertions of procedural lapses are insufficient ["USHMAN BASHA Vs INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras"], ["Yerragunta Laxminarayana VS Regonda Markandeya - Telangana"], ["Balveer Singh VS State Of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"].
Specific Restrictions - The courts have also clarified that accused persons who have already given evidence generally cannot be recalled unless there are exceptional circumstances. The exercise of this power should not cause undue harassment or delay, and the reasons must be explicitly stated and justified ["FERNANDO v. SILVA"], ["Hazari VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Courts can recall witnesses during proceedings to address gaps, clarify testimony, or prevent miscarriage of justice. However, such recall is not a routine matter and must be supported by valid, tangible reasons. The discretion to recall is to be exercised judiciously, balancing the interests of justice with the need to prevent unnecessary delay or harassment. Vague or unsubstantiated requests for recall are likely to be rejected, and courts are advised to exercise this power sparingly and in exceptional cases only ["USHMAN BASHA vs INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras"], ["Khalid @ Khalli VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Bhimsen Ojha vs Samuel Devashish James - Orissa"].
In legal proceedings, ensuring a just decision is paramount, but courts must balance this with preventing abuse of process. A common question arises: Can a court recall a witness for lacuna fillup? This query touches on the nuanced powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and parallels in civil law. Generally, courts possess wide discretion to summon or recall witnesses, but this is not unlimited—especially when it comes to addressing inherent weaknesses, or 'lacunas,' in a case. This post breaks down the principles, distinctions, and judicial safeguards, drawing from key precedents. Note: This is general information; consult a legal expert for case-specific advice.
Section 311 CrPC grants courts plenary authority: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person 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. Mannan Sk VS State of West Bengal - 2014 7 Supreme 11Bhabesh Sarmah, S/O Chandra Nath Sarmah VS State of Assam - 2017 0 Supreme(Gau) 445S. B. Industries VS Eastern Infratech - 2021 0 Supreme(Gau) 468
This power is exercisable at any stage, even after prior recalls, and can be initiated by the court suo motu or on a party's motion. As affirmed, The power of the court is plenary to summon or even recall any witness at any stage of the case if the court considers it necessary for a just decision. Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer In Charge, Delhi - 1999 6 Supreme 4Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell through its Officer-in-Charge, Delhi - 1999 6 Supreme 4Mannan Sk VS State of West Bengal - 2014 7 Supreme 11
However, this discretion is guided by the pursuit of truth and justice, not caprice. Courts must exercise it with circumspection to avoid prejudice to the accused or unnecessary delays. Mannan Sk VS State of West Bengal - 2014 7 Supreme 11S. B. Industries VS Eastern Infratech - 2021 0 Supreme(Gau) 468
The heart of the issue lies in differentiating lacuna from oversight:- Lacuna refers to an inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of such gaps typically goes to the accused. Courts cannot use recall powers to fill these. Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer In Charge, Delhi - 1999 6 Supreme 4Mannan Sk VS State of West Bengal - 2014 7 Supreme 11Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell through its Officer-in-Charge, Delhi - 1999 6 Supreme 4- Oversight or inadvertence involves prosecutorial errors, like failing to elicit key answers or exhibit documents already on record. These are correctable: No party in a trial can be fore-closed from correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer In Charge, Delhi - 1999 6 Supreme 4Mannan Sk VS State of West Bengal - 2014 7 Supreme 11Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell through its Officer-in-Charge, Delhi - 1999 6 Supreme 4Bhabesh Sarmah, S/O Chandra Nath Sarmah VS State of Assam - 2017 0 Supreme(Gau) 445
A lacuna is not to be equated with the fallout of an oversight committed by a public prosecutor during trial, either in producing relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer In Charge, Delhi - 1999 6 Supreme 4Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell through its Officer-in-Charge, Delhi - 1999 6 Supreme 4
Other sources echo this: Error cannot be regarded lacuna—such error can be corrected by recalling witness. Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell - 1999 0 Supreme(MP) 439
Courts routinely reject recall applications aimed at bolstering a weak case:- Recall is disallowed if solely to fill lacuna or cause prejudice/delay; must be bona fide and essential. Neha Begum VS State of Assam - 2024 6 Supreme 740Shubhkaran Singh VS Abhayraj Singh - 2025 4 Supreme 741Ram Rati VS Mange Ram - 2016 2 Supreme 396- Specifically, Such course of action is only permissible if Court is satisfied that prayer to recall... is not made to fill in lacuna and that non-summoning... would cause serious prejudice to accused. Neha Begum VS State of Assam - 2024 6 Supreme 740
In one ruling, the court cautioned against protracting tactics: The Court can exercise its discretion to recall a witness, but at the same time it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. Gundluru Sreenivasulu, S/o Late Subbachari VS Gundluru Bhagyamma, W/o Late Subramanyam Achari - 2022 Supreme(AP) 495
Late-stage requests, especially without prior listing of witnesses, are often denied: At the fag end of the trial when the matter has been fixed for pronouncement of judgment, he cannot be permitted to reopen the case and summon a witness. Ratan Lal s/o Bhanwar Lal Kumawat VS Babu s/o Late Lelu @ Naula Ji Kumawat - 2017 Supreme(Raj) 626
Despite limits, recalls are permitted for genuine needs:- Oversights: E.g., unexhibited documents already on record. Bhabesh Sarmah, S/O Chandra Nath Sarmah VS State of Assam - 2017 0 Supreme(Gau) 445- Post-charge alterations: Under Section 217 CrPC, if no prejudice. Bansal Milk Chilling Centre VS Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1118- Clarifications: To resolve ambiguities from cross-examination. Manish Tandon VS Ankita Bhutani - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 2535- Even late-stage if essential and no delay tactics: Negligence/latches correctable under 311. Shailendra Kumar VS State Of Bihar - 2001 8 Supreme 513
Additional insights confirm: Recall is possible at any stage if essential for just decision—can be directed on motion of either party or on Court's own motion—satisfaction of Court is the only requirement. Shankarlal VS State of M. P. - 2023 Supreme(MP) 30
In discretionary exercises, courts emphasize fairness: The court has discretionary power to recall witnesses and reopen cases post-trial to ensure justice, provided strong reasons are presented and no prejudice to the opposing party occurs. OOI CHENG HUAT @ OOI PENG HUAT & ORS vs SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD & OTHER CASES
Civil proceedings mirror these limits under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC: The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may... put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.
But: Power is to be used for removing ambiguities, for clarifying statement and not for the purposes of filling up lacuna in a party's case. Shubhkaran Singh VS Abhayraj Singh - 2025 4 Supreme 741Ram Rati VS Mange Ram - 2016 2 Supreme 396Dr Tadavarthi Sri Anjaneya Gupta vs Yellanki Srinivas - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 35085
This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17... but in this regard the party has very limited scope. RABI NARAYAN ROUT vs BAIRAGI KHUNTIA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 6616
The power is expansive as it is, must be sparingly exercised. Courts reject routine use for evidentiary gaps, requiring valid reasons to avoid prolonging litigation. Debi Prasad Rayaguru vs Basanti Mishra - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2206Navinchandra Khimchand Shah VS PUTCO Pvt Ltd. - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1277
In maintenance cases under Section 125 CrPC, recall is possible but only if necessary: The trial court has the power to recall a witness for re-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C., but there must be a necessity for such recall. Manish Tandon VS Ankita Bhutani - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 2535
To prevent misuse:- Record reasons: Demonstrate essentiality for just decision.- Mitigate prejudice: Allow cross-examination; impose costs for frivolous requests. Dr Tadavarthi Sri Anjaneya Gupta vs Yellanki Srinivas - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 35085Ram Rati VS Mange Ram - 2016 2 Supreme 396- Scrutinize motives: Thin line between lacuna and oversight; facts decide. Mannan Sk VS State of West Bengal - 2014 7 Supreme 11S. B. Industries VS Eastern Infratech - 2021 0 Supreme(Gau) 468
Recommendations include assessing if the request targets inherent weakness (deny) or oversight (allow if no prejudice), and prioritizing truth in criminal trials while addressing defense objections. Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer In Charge, Delhi - 1999 6 Supreme 4
Understanding these boundaries upholds fair trials. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence.
References (select excerpts):1. Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer In Charge, Delhi - 1999 6 Supreme 4: Lacuna vs. oversight; plenary power.2. Mannan Sk VS State of West Bengal - 2014 7 Supreme 11: Wide S.311 power; cites Mohanlal Soni.3. Neha Begum VS State of Assam - 2024 6 Supreme 740: No recall for lacuna without prejudice.And others as cited above.
#CrPC311, #WitnessRecall, #IndianLaw
Without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, this Court finds from the order of the learned Judge that the order does not indicate the grounds on which the petition for recall was filed and the reason for dismissal of the petition. ... Only fillup the petition. Due to principal of Kartikeyan (v) State this petition is not maintainable. Dismissed.'' The order did not discuss the grounds taken by the petitioner. ... The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that c....
It should not cause prejudice to the accused. It should not permit the prosecution to fillup the lacuna. Whether recall of a witness is for filling-up of a lacuna or it is for just decision of a case depends on facts and circumstances of each case. ... authority at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-ex....
The defendant No.1 sought recall of witness Shyamlal on the ground that this witness could not be cross-examined as to the affidavit given in favour of defendant No.3. ... recall of Plaintiff's witness Shyam Vishwakarma. ... It is relevant to mention here that the witness Shyamlal has been examined in August 2025 and the Trial Court has allowed the application for recall of witness only on the ground that it appear....
This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the court to put such question to elicit any clarifications. Xx .. xx .. xx .. ... In exercise of power under Order 18, Rule 17 though the court is authorized to recall a witness as and when necessary but in this regard the party has very limited scope to pray for #HL_START....
Court may recall and examine witness - The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.” ... This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any wit....
as witness of the defendant in I.A No. 198 of 2010 and not as a court witness. ... Court may recall and examine witness- The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.” ... This inherent power of the court is not ....
Thus, Section 311 of Cr.P.C. does not create any right for recall of witness in favour of any party to the proceeding and the said Section empowers a Court to recall and re-examine a witness to ensure that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable ... in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examine....
This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the court to put such question to elicit any clarifications. xx xx xx 19. ... Therefore, the court must be very cautious and circumspective while exercising the power to recall the witness. It should not be exercised in favour of particular set of parties ....
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 ... The power vested under the said provision is made available to any Court at any stage i n any inquiry or trial or other proceeding initiated under t....
This is because if Y has been released as a witness by the Court subject to recall (Court's Conditional Release (Y)), X can simply recall Y based on the Court's Conditional Release (Y) and X need not apply to Court under ... concern an application to recall a witness under Ong Yoke Eng, at p 674; (iii) Z and Z's learned Counsel should be given sufficient time to prepare for- (iii) (a) Y's recall; and" [Emphasis Added]; (2) a href=".....
The Court can exercise its discretion to recall a witness, but at the same time it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic.
The object of this rule is to afford an opportunity to a party to put such questions to a witness not put at an earlier occasion—because of inadvertence or could not be put despite due diligence. This power, expansive as it is, must be sparingly exercised. The Trial Court can recall the witness either on its own or at the party’s request.
He further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rammi @ Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 21.09.1999 (Annexure P6) to contend that a witness may be recalled for re-examination to explain a certain ambiguity which has emanated from his cross-examination. Therefore, the learned trial court has power or discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall a witness. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni v. Union of India and another, AIR 1991 SC 1346 (Annexure P5) to urge that the trial court....
But in the present case, since the witness has not been examined, the question of recalling does not arise. 7. It is further pertinent to note that the defendant/petitioner has not mentioned the said witness in the list of witnesses, which he is required to furnish before the court, and now at the fag end of the trial when the matter has been fixed for pronouncement of judgment, he cannot be permitted to reopen the case and summon a witness. Therefore, the rulings cited by counsel for the petitioner have no applicability to the facts of this case. More particularly, it is only the ....
In the present case, it appears that P.W.3 Shivnarayan Mehta was examined on 23.8.1989. It appears that the court has not been given the unfettered power to recall or re-examine any witness. The witness can be recalled or re-summoned and examined or cross-examined in case there is alteration or addition to charge under Section 217 and under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the evidence of such witness appeared to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case, meaning thereby, a witness cannot be recalled or recross-examined without any rightf....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
