S. 311 CrPC Not Only Aims To Do Substantial Justice But Also Intends To Establish An Orderly Society: HP High Court

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur has observed,

“The object and aim of the provision, as a whole, is to do substantial justice not only from the viewpoint of the party but also to establish an orderly society. Where the Court finds it essential to examine, re-examine, recall or call any witness, at any stage of inquiry/trial or other proceedings for rendering just decision in the case, this power can be exercised at any stage”.

In the instant matter petitioner, Gagnesh Thakur initiated a Criminal Complaint against Respondent Vishal Awasthi, accusing him of dishonoring cheques issued for a loan extended during August to October 2011. ] Awasthi sought relief through an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to lead additional evidence and cross-examine the complainant during the pending trial.

The respondent's application was initially allowed by the trial Magistrate, a decision later upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner- Complainant approached the High Court through a petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C arguing that the application was filed at a belated stage and solely to delay the proceedings.

Justice Thakur meticulously analyzed the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C., emphasizing its purpose to uncover the truth and render a just decision. The bench highlighted that the power granted under Section 311 is essential to ensuring substantial justice and maintaining an orderly society. The Court asserted that this discretionary power can be exercised at any stage of an inquiry or trial when deemed necessary for a just decision.

Quoting extensively from the Supreme Court judgment in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, the court reiterated that the power under Section 311 should be exercised judiciously and only when the evidence sought is truly essential for a just outcome. The Court underscored that fair trial and the interest of the accused, victim, and society must be safeguarded, and the power should be invoked for strong and valid reasons.

Applying these principles to the present case, Justice Thakur found merit in the trial court's decision to allow the respondent to lead additional evidence as the same could potentially have a bearing on the case and would be in the interest of arriving at a just decision.

Based on the considerations the ] court concluded that the Trial Magistrate had not committed any irregularity, illegality, or perversity in allowing the application for additional evidence.

Case Title: Gagnesh Thakur Vs Vishal Awasthi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 82

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment