Discretionary Power To Summon Witnesses U/S 311 Cr.P.C. Must Be Exercised Judiciously, With Strong Reasons And Caution: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has affirmed the discretionary power of courts under Section 311 Cr.P.C., emphasising its role in uncovering the truth while underscoring the need for its judicious exercise.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi noted, “Section 311 Cr.P.C. is one of many such provisions which strengthens the arms of the Court in its efforts to unearth the truth by procedural sanction by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reason and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.”
In the case at hand, a charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner, and proceedings were underway with the prosecution's evidence being presented. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was subsequently filed by the Opposite Party no. 2 to recall five witnesses who had yet to be examined. The trial court rejected this application, leading to an appeal before the Sessions Judge, who overturned the trial court's decision and permitted the recall of the witnesses. This order was then contested in a petition seeking to quash the Sessions Judge's ruling.
The High Court observed that manipulations related to Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC were evident, and referenced previous judgments in Rajendra Prasad vs Narcotics Cell and Mohanlal Shamji Sani vs Union of India.
The court highlighted, “if proper evidence is not adduced and relevant matter was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such steps to be rectified. This part of excerpts of the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court itself indicates that Section 311 Cr.P.C. includes power for examining the witnesses as well as admitting the relevant materials which are not brought on record. The Court further finds that the learned revisional Court has directed to the trial court to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis and the witnesses were directed to remain present on each date of hearing.”
Based on these considerations, the High Court found no illegality in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Thakur V. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 118