Sandeep Alias Sonu v. State of Haryana

IN

(121) Sandeep a State of H CORAM:

Present:

ALOK JA

¶1The

07.03.2024 Karnal in at P.S City for recallin Jaswinder examinatio

¶2the paper b

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

lias Sonu Versus aryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEAL

**** Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocat Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Har

****

AIN, J. e Present petition has been filed 4 (Annexure P-5), passed by L FIR No. 350 dt. 28.04.2021 u/s y Karnal, whereby the applicatio ng of the witnesses, i.e.PW-1 A Singh under Section 311o on was dismissed. The background facts of the c book are as under:

AB AND HARYANA AT RH CRM-M-15180-2024 Date of Decision:-30.05.2024 ……Petitioners ……Respondents LOK JAIN te for the petitioner. ryana. for quashing of the order dated Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, s 20 & 25 NDPS Act, registered on filed by the petitioner/accused ASI Vikram Singh and PW-4 SI f Cr.P.C. for further cross-case which emerge on perusal of

s

s

d , d d I - f

i. A p S w t n b w O o w R o a d S a a r A ii. T r

An FIR was registered with the present case received a secret In Sandeep Kumar @ Sonu son of who already stands convicted in the sale and purchase of narcoti near New Grain Market, Bazid bearing registration no. HR-05 with him and if a raid is conduct On this information, the IO prep of the NDPS Act and sent the sam with other officials reached ne Road, Karnal to conduct a raid, on his scooty and on the pointin apprehended and interrogated. disclosed his name as Sandeep Singh, resident of 1961, Gali n allegedly had a bag with 1kg 71 accused could not produce an recovered Sulfa, a case under s Act was registered. The trial commenced and the p recorded. The testimony of mat

e allegations that the IO in the formation from an informer that Nakli Singh, resident of Karnal, n an NDPS case is indulging in cs and is currently selling Sulfa da Road, Karnal on his scooty 5BD-7803 and is having charas ted he can be caught red handed. pared a notice under section 42 me to PS City, Karnal. IO along ear New Grain Market, Bazida where a young man was sitting ng of informer the accused was On interrogation by the IO, he Kumar @ Sonu son of Nakli no.1, Shanti Nagar, Karnal who 5 gm Sulfa(Charas) in it. As the ny licence or permit qua the ection 20 and 25 of the NDPS prosecution evidence was duly erial witnesses i.e. PW - 1 ASI

e t , n a y s . g a g s e i o e e S y I

V d iii. T o J t D r a w w t a p iv. T t t

¶3Karnal had for recallin great prej

Vikram Singh and PW - 4 SI Ja dated 22.04.2022 and 25.01.2023 That during the pendency of t

07.03.2024 moved an applicatio of the witnesses PW-1 ASI Jaswinder Singh for further cros that though the said witnesses ha Des Raj Goyal, (previous coun reasons best known to him, the l asked some material / relev witnesses, whereas the said witnesses are necessary to be as the case. It is further stated that allowed to be recalled for furth petitioner/accused would suffer i The application under Section 3 the Ld. Additional Sessions Judg the present quashing petition. Learned counsel for the petit d erred and fell into grave error ng of witnesses for their further judice would be caused to

aswinder Singh was recorded on 3 respectively. the said trial, the petitioner on on u/s 311of Cr.P.C.for recalling Vikram Singh and PW-4 S1 s-examination. It was submitted ave been cross-examined by Shri sel of accused), but due to the earned previous counsel had not vant questions from the said questions from the aforesaid ked for just and fair decision of t if the witnesses would not be her examined in the court, the irreparable loss. 311 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by ge, Karnal on 07.03.2024, hence, tioner submits that the Ld. ASJ, r while declining the application r cross-examination. Moreover, the petitioner-accused if the

n n g

d i e t d d f e e y , , n , e

application that the L position o re-calling concocted case.

¶4that the w on materi complianc witnesses

¶5Ld. Trial C were requ not allowe

¶6ADJ, Ka petitioner/ Singh and was put to decision o

n under Section 311of Cr.P.C.is Ld. ASJ, Karnal has failed to of the case. The Ld. Court ha would prove that the allegati that the petitioner has been fa Learned Counsel for the pe witnesses proposed to be recalled ial aspects like of recovery p ce as per provisions of NDPS a is essential for the just decision o Learned Counsel for the petit Court further failed to appreciat ired to be asked to these materi ed the petitioner would suffer egr Counsel for the petitioner als arnal failed to appreciate th /accused did not effectively cro d PW4 SI Jaswinder Singh and o the said witnesses, which were of the case. It was further submit

not allowed. He further submits appreciate the facts and legal as failed to appreciate that the ions against the petitioner are alsely implicated in the present etitioner emphatically submitted d have not been cross-examined part, notice issued, mandatory ct, hence, the recalling of these of the case. tioner further submitted that the te that certain relevant questions ial witnesses and if the same is regious loss. so tried to persuade that the Ld. hat previous counsel of the oss-examine PW1 ASI Vikram d no material/ relevant question e necessary and essential for just tted that no specific question on

s l e e t d d y e e s s . e m n t n

the aspects discrepanc

¶7averments Court, the I. II. III.

s deposed by such witnesses hav cies/ inconsistencies in their state Learned Counsel for the relied upon the following judge relevant paragraphs of which ar Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P., "Though Section 311 confers and is expressed in the discretionary power under th only far the ends of justice. exercised consistently with th principles of criminal law conferred under Section 311 for reasons stated by the capriciously." Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v.

(Cri) 8 "The object underlying Sectio may not be failure of justice party in bringing the valua record ог leaving the statem from either side." Swapan Kumar Chatterjee C

(2019) 14 SCC 328

ve been asked in order to obtain ements. petitioner to substantiate his ements of the Hon'ble Supreme re reproduced as under:- , (2011) 8 SCC 240 s vast discretion upon the court widest possible terms, the he said section can be invoked Discretionary power should be he provisions of CrPC the and w. The discretionary power 1 has to be exercised judicially court and not arbitrarily or . State of Gujarat (2006) 2 SCC on 311 of the Code is that there on account of mistake of either able evidence on ambiguity in ments of the witnesses examined Central Bureau of Investigation,

n s e t e d e d r y r C e r n d ,

¶8present pe a relevant it would l submitted observing Cr.P.C. d omitted to petition ha

¶9appraised

¶10reads as un

"It is well settled that the pow should be invoked by the c justice. The power is to be valid reasons and it should b and circumspection. The co section to even recall witness examination, necessary in the consideration exercised afte circumstances of each case. shall not be exercised if the application has been filed as Per Contra, learned state cou etition and has submitted that me ground to allow an application ead to unnecessary delay in the that the Learned ASJ, Karna that the petitioner in his app id not state the specific ques o be asked to PW-1 and PW-4 aving no merit, deserves to be dis I have considered submissio the record carefully. It is necessary to reproduce nder:

wer conferred under Section 311 court only to meet the ends of exercised only for strong and be exercised with great caution urt has vide power under this ses for re-examination or further e interest of justice but the to be er taking into the facts and The power under this provision e court is of the view that the an abuse of the process of law." unsel has fervently opposed the ere change of counsel cannot be under Section 311of Cr.P.C. as e conclusion of trial. He further al passed a reasoned order by plication under Section 311 of stions which were purportedly 4 by his previous counsel. The smissed. ons of both the sides and have Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which

f d n s r e d n e " e e s r y f y e e h

¶11dwell on t by the Hon

¶12comprehen v. Tulsida Jamatraj 415 where section 16 Courts as in order to exercise a them confe

¶13Hidayatull

¶311Power to summon mate present.- Any Court may, at a other proceeding under this attendance, though not summ re-examine any person alre shall summon and examine such person if his evidence ap just decision of the case. Before alluding to the merit the legal position vis-à-vis Secti n'ble Supreme Court in a plethor The nature and scope of nsively enunciated by the Apex as Mundhra, (1963) 2 SCJ 2 Kewalji Govani v. State of eby it was observed that Sect 5 of the Indian Evidence Act em the case may be, to summon and o discover or to obtain proof of all the privileges and powers an fer jurisdiction on the Judge to ac In the case of Jamatraj Ke lah, J., while expounding the un

erial witness, or examine person any stage of any inquiry, trial or Code, summon any person in moned as a witness, or recall and eady examined; and the Court or recall and re-examine any ppears to it to be essential to the ts of the case, it is pertinent to ion 311 of Cr.P.C.as articulated ra of judgments. f Section 311of Cr.P.C. was Court in State of West Bengal 204 at 207 and in the case of Maharashtra, (1967) 3 SCR tion 311 of Cr.P.C.along with mpowered the Criminal and Civil d examine witnesses. The Court f relevant facts is empowered to nd "these two sections between ct in aid of justice." Kewalji Govani (Supra)wherein nfettered discretionary power of

n r n d t y e o d s l f R h l t o n n f

the Court Cr.P.C., 19

14.

(1991) Sup

as envisaged under Section 54 973) has stated thus (at pp. 182-8 "It is difficult to limit the po which involve something a human ingenuity could forese Our Code does not make thi the power and it is not legislation. Cases that go far Indeed they could be decided be seen whether the new matt decision and not intended to g of the rival sides... It would jurisdiction, statutory law con to be exercised at any stage o or examine one present in already examined, and makes the Court provided the just d In other words, where the co the second part, the inquiry has brought anything sudden the court is right in thinking by it for a just decision of t without the requirements of a to criticism but if the court's a aid of a just decision the exceeding the jurisdiction." The Apex Court in Mohanlal pp (1) SCC 271 gave the gistof

40 of the Code (Section 311 of 83) : ower under our Code to cases arising ex-improvise which no ee, in the course of the defence. is a condition of the exercise of right to embark on judicial r are of course not quite right. d on fact because it can always ter is strictly necessary for a just give an unfair advantage to one d appear that in our criminal nfers a power in absolute terms of the trial to summon a witness court or to recall a witness s this the duty and obligation of decision of the case demands it. ourt exercises the power under cannot be whether the accused nly or unexpectedly but whether that the new evidence is needed the case. If the court has acted a just decision, the action is open action is supportable as being in action cannot be regarded as l Shamji Soni v. Union of India f the Section 311 of Cr.P.C.as it

f s o

f l

s t e l s s s f

r d r d d n n s a t

obtained f v. State of

(1963) Sup

(1967) 3 S Prosad M State of M

¶15Sheikh an (Criminal) conscientio that the C available u Evidence from parag

from various decisions of this Co f U.P. (1978) 2 SCC 518; State pp 1 SCR 1; Jamatraj Kewalji G SCR 415; Masalti v. State of U.P Misra v. State of W.B. (1966) 1 Maharashtra (1971) 1 SCC 523, t "The principle of law that em by this Court in the above dec has ample power to summo recall and re-examine any su on both sides is closed and th obviously be dictated by exi play and good sense appear that only the requiremen examination of any person w and circumstances of each ca In the famous Best Bakery c nd another v. State of Gujar l) 836: (2004)4 SCC 158, the ous role to be played by the Cri Courts are alive to the realities under Section 311of Cr.P.C. rea Act. The relevant part of the s graphs 43, 44, 46 and 56, which

ourt, namely Rameshwar Dayal e of W.B. v. Tulsidas Mundhra Govani v. State of Maharashtra P. (1964) 8 SCR 133; Rajeswar SCR 178; and R.B. Mithani v. the Court held: merges from the views expressed cisions is that the criminal court on any person as a witness or uch person even if the evidence he jurisdiction of the court must igency of the situation and fair to be the only safe guides and nts of justice command the which would depend on the facts ase." case i.e. Zahira Habibullah H. rat and others, 2004(2) RCR Supreme Court reminded the iminal Courts in order to ensure s, realizing its width of power ad along with Section 165 of the said decision can be culled out are as under:

l a a r

d t r e t r d e s

R e e r e t

¶16F Prasad Ya 726, the C Cr.P.C.and

"43. The courts have to take They are not expected to whatever is being stated by t Code and Section 165 of the wide powers on presiding necessary materials by pla evidence-collecting process. proceedings in aid of justice which is not relevant, is n record. Even if the prosecuto control the proceedings eff objective i.e. truth is arr necessary where the court h prosecuting agency or the p requisite manner. The court c pretend to be blissfully ignor pitfalls or dereliction of duty agency. The prosecutor who more like a counsel for the d judicial system, and courts co of such prosecuting agency sh an attitude of total aloofness. Further, in Zahira Habibullah adav v. State of Bihar and ano Court reiterated the extent of d held that: "The object underlying Sectio may not be failure of justice

e a participatory role in a trial. be tape recorders to record the witnesses. Section 311 of the e Evidence Act confer vast and officers of court to elicit all aying an active role in the They have to monitor the e in a manner that something, not unnecessarily brought into or is remiss in some ways, it can ffectively so that the ultimate rived at. This becomes more has reasons to believe that the prosecutor is not acting in the cannot afford to be wishfully or rant or oblivious to such serious y on the part of the prosecuting o does not act fairly and acts defence is a liability to the fair ould not also play into the hands howing indifference or adopting Sheikh (supra)and in Rajaram other, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) powers under Section 311 of on 311 of the Code is that there on account of mistake of either

d e d l e e

o n e e e e r s g s r s g m ) f e r

¶17State of M nature of p

party in bringing the valuabl ambiguity in the statements o either side. The determinative to the just decision of the case for the benefit of the accused exercise of the powers of th under the section merely bec case of the prosecution and section is a general section w enquiries and trials under Magistrate to issue summons such proceedings, trial or significant expression that o inquiry or trial or other proc however, to be borne in m confers a very wide power witnesses, the discretion c judiciously, as the wider t necessity for application of ju The Hon'ble Supreme Court r Madhya Pradesh 2022 AIR (Supr power under Section 311of Cr.P "This power can be exercise trial or other proceeding und Section 311 states that the examine or recall and re-ex evidence appears to the Co decision of the case". Section

le evidence on record or leaving of the witnesses examined from e factor is whether it is essential e. The section is not limited only d and it will not be an improper he court to summon a witness cause the evidence supports the d not that of the accused. The which applies to all proceedings, the Code and empowers the s to any witness at any stage of enquiry. In Section 311 the occurs is "at any stage of any ceeding under this Code". It is, mind that whereas the section r on the court on summoning conferred is to be exercised the power the greater is the udicial mind." recently in Varsha Garg v. The reme Court) 3707 discussed the P.C.: - ed at any stage of any inquiry, der the CrPC. The latter part of e Court "shall" summon and xamine any such person "if his ourt to be essential to the just n 311 contains a power upon the

g m l y r s e e

e f e y

n g d e e e

f d s t e

¶18enunciated ambit of S any stage a

Court in broad terms. The st purposively, to achieve the in discovery of truth.

¶29The first part of the stat expression "may" postulates at any stage of an inquiry, latter part of the provision m by the Court as it uses the examine or recall and re-ex evidence appears to it to be the case. Essentiality of the e be examined coupled with the case constitute the touchstone of the Court. The first par discretionary while the latter The Hon'ble Apex Court d in Mohanlal Shamji Soni (s Section 311 of Cr.P.C.which allo and held that: "The power of the court und Act is in a way complement 311 of the Code. The sectio giving a discretion to the cou

tatutory provision must be read ntent of the statute to aid in the tutory provision which uses the that the power can be exercised trial or other proceeding. The mandates the recall of a witness expression "shall summon and xamine any such person if his essential to the just decision of evidence of the person who is to e need for the just decision of the e which must guide the decision rt of the statutory provision is part is obligatory." while reiterating the principle (supra) stressed upon the wide ows the power to be exercised at der Section 165 of the Evidence tary to its power under Section n consists of two parts i.e.: (i) urt to examine the witness at any

d e e d e s d s f o e n s e e t e n ) y

stage and (ii) the mandatory p to examine a witness if his e to the just decision of the cou to the court is very wide corresponding caution. In M Court has observed, while co of Section 311, that the very u court", "at any stage", or proceedings", "any person" spells out that the section possible terms and do not lim any way. However, as noted a corresponding caution that t be invoked as the exigencies judicially with circumspecti provisions of the Code. The not allow any discretion but o take necessary steps if the fr essential to the just decision active and alert mind and abandon or abdicate. Object court to arrive at the truth i prosecution or the defence evidence which is necessary f the case. The power is ex examined neither to help the the court feels that there is Section 311 but only to sub public interest. It is done evidence in aid of a just decis

portion which compels the court evidence appears to be essential urt. Though the discretion given e, the very width requires a Mohanlal v. Union of India this onsidering the scope and ambit usage of the words such as, "any "any enquiry or trial or other and "any such person" clearly has expressed in the widest-mit the discretion of the court in above, the very width requires a the discretionary powers should of justice require and exercised ion and consistently with the second part of the section does obligates and binds the court to fresh evidence to be obtained is n of the case, "essential" to an not to one which is bent to t of the section is to enable the irrespective of the fact that the has failed to produce some for a just and proper disposal of xercised and the evidence is prosecution nor the defence, if s necessity to act in terms of bserve the cause of justice and with an object of getting the sion and to uphold the truth."

t l n a s t y r y - n a d d e s o s n o e e e f s f f d e

¶19Cr.P.C.allo as the end prohibition proceeding judgment section to

¶20Cr.P.C.giv the exercis unguided possible te which the manner in the princip be obtaine case by ge borne in m object of d for a just with circum

At the risk of repetition, it m ows the court to invoke its inher ds of justice are being met, with n. Needless to say, that an e g comes to an end or reaches is pronounced and until then t uncover the truth. The next important questi ves the court carte-blanche draw se of the extra-ordinary power and uncontrolled. Though Se erms calls for no limitation, eit powers of the court should be which they should be exercised ple that underlines Section 311o ed should appear to the court es etting at the truth by all lawful mind that the aid of the section s discovering relevant facts or obta decision of the case and it mu mspection.

may be said that Section 311 of rent power at any stage, as long hout qualifying any limitation or enquiry or trial in a criminal its finality when the order or the court has power to use this on is whether Section 311 of wing no underlying principle in and whether the said Section is ection 311of Cr.P.C. the widest ther with regard to the stage at exercised, or with regard to the d, that power is circumscribed by of Cr.P.C., namely, evidence to ssential to a just decision of the means. Therefore, it should be should be invoked only with the aining proper proof of such facts ust be used judicially and along

f g r l r s f n s t t e y o e e e s g

¶21SCC 518, power by t

¶22Investigati

Fazl Ali, J. in Rameshwar D while expressing his views ab the Court has stated (paras 13 an "It is true that under Sec Criminal Procedure Code, th powers to examine any witnes the case, but this power has only when the ends of justi power the more careful shou "Just decision of the case" w without any significance if without a sense of justice and In Swapan Kumar Cha tion, (2019) 14 SCC 328, wherei "It is well settled that the pow should be invoked by the c justice. The power is to be valid reasons and it should b and circumspection. The co section to even recall witness examination, necessary in the consideration exercised afte circumstances of each case. shall not be exercised if the application has been filed as

Dayal V. State of U. P., (1978) 2 bout the careful exercise of its nd 17): tion 540 (Section 311) of the he High Court has got very wide ss it likes for the just decision of s to be exercised sparingly and ice so demand. The higher the uld be its exercise.... The words, would become meaningless and a decision is to be arrived at d fair play". atterjee Central Bureau of n Apex Court held: wer conferred under Section 311 court only to meet the ends of exercised only for strong and be exercised with great caution urt has vide power under this ses for re-examination or further e interest of justice but the to be er taking into the facts and The power under this provision e court is of the view that the an abuse of the process of law."

s e e f d e

d t f f d n s r e d n e "

¶23comprehen issue whi power ve Cr.P.C.in

¶24Investigati the wide d the said po

¶25it become under Sec exercised: i.

Having noted the above nsively define the scope of Secti ich needs to be addressed is ested with the Criminal Co practical terms must be exerc In Swapan Kumar Chatt tion, (2019) 14 SCC 328, the S discretion to the Criminal Court owers were not unbridled as it ob "Where the prosecution evid and the reasons for non-exam not satisfactory, the summon stage would cause great preju not be allowed. Similarly, the filing of successive applicatio this provision." On a scrupulous analysis of th es comprehensible as to how th ction 311 of Cr.P.C with the - Capriciously or arbitrarily be the power may lead to undesir

e-mentioned decisions which ion 311of Cr.P.C., the juridical that how the extraordinary ourts under Section 311 of cised. terjee vs Central Bureau of Supreme Court held that despite ts under Section 311of Cr.P.C., bserved: dence has been closed long back mination of the witness earlier is ning of the witness at belated udice to the accused and should e court should not encourage the ons for recall of a witness under he judgments of the Apex Court, he discretionary powers vested criminal courts must not be ecause any improper exercise of rable results;

h l y f f e , k s d d e r , d e f

ii. iii. iv.

¶26been veste Section 31 application relevant fa justice.

¶27Section 31 witness if the basis o elusive.

guidelines

To fill up the lacuna left defence; To the disadvantage of the prejudice to the defence of th advantage to the rival side; To tender additional evidence change the nature of the case It is has now become a trite ed with the trial courts while 11 of Cr.P.C. and the very basis n under the said provision is to acts before it so that it discharge The Trial Courts while con 11of Cr.P.C. have been given a it appears to be essential for th on which they shall exercise th Therefore, this Court deems i which shall act as beacon to gu

by the prosecution or by the e accused or the cause serious he accused or to give an unfair e as a disguise for a retrial or to against either of the parties. law that enormous powers have deciding an application under s for allowing or disallowing an o get a conclusive proof of the es its solemn duty of dispensing nsidering an application under amend i.e. they shall summon a he just decision of the case but his discretionary power remains it appropriate to issue the certain uide the trial courts in exercising

e s r o e r n e g r a t s n g

its discret Cr.P.C.

¶28of accuse Constitutio and fair pl

¶29i.

existence allow the ground.

made with

tion while considering an app These guidelines are being is ed to get a fair and speedy on of India and to ensure that ay are upheld. The guidelines are as follow An application to examin allowed when it is based up of such a nature as to be a was, when the witness was the trial was at such a stage to the Court and als recall/examination, provide due to negligence. Provided that the Cour of the new fact, recognizing th application, and declaring the Provided that an applica hin three months of the discove

plication under Section 311of ssued keeping in view the right trial under Article 21 of the the principles of justice, equity ws: - ne/recall a witness shall be pon the discovery of some fact a decisive factor, which in fact s examined/cross-examined or e, as the case may be, unknown o to the party claiming d that such ignorance was not rt must expressly record the at it has such a character as to application admissible on this ation on this ground must be ery of the new fact.

f t e y e t t r n g t e o s e

ii. iii. iv. v.

secure th aforement applicatio

Mere Change of Counsel du sole ground to allow an ap Cr.P.C. An application made post fa has elapsed shall detail ou witness is sought to be ex party would be prejudice examined/recalled. Plain averments by a pa examined/recalled would sufficient, it should be con such a witness is not exa materially impact the outco The Courts shall decide an of Cr.P.C.as expeditiously a period of three months These guidelines shall pur he ends of justice and tioned guidelines, the paramou on under Section 311of Cr.P.C

uring the trial shall not be the pplication under Section 311of facto i.e. after the stage of trial ut the purpose for which the amined/recalled and how the d if the said witness is not rty that if a witness is not cause prejudiceshall not be nspicuous to the Court that if amined/recalled then it shall me of the case. application under Section 311 as possible preferably within a rely serve as a facilitator to hence, notwithstanding the unt consideration to decide an C. must be to uphold justice,

e f l e e t t e f l a o e n ,

equity an that no hu

the depar within the

¶30trial, even the appell be taken i

¶31Cr.P.C., no of two pro SI Jaswin respective under Sec i.e. PW-1 cross-exam witnesses

¶32while mov two witnes

d fair play as there shall alwa uman ingenuity can foresee. Be that as it may, the trial C rture from these guidelines if e ambit of these guidelines. These guidelines shall be a n at the appellate stage. If the late Court, then the Scope of into consideration. Having considered the lega ow let us advert to the facts of osecution witnesses namely PW-nder Singh was recorded on ly. The petitioner after almost ction 311of Cr.P.C. on 07.03.20 ASI Vikram Singh and PW-4 mination stating that the further shall be essential for the just dec The Grounds taken by the p ving the application under Sect sses are as follows:-

ays be facts and circumstances Court shall record reasons for the case of the applicant falls applicable at all the stages of e application is moved before Section 391 Cr.P.C. shall also al position qua Section 311of the present case. The testimony -1 ASI Vikram Singh and PW-4 n 22.04.2022 and 25.01.2023 t one year filed an application 024 for recalling two witnesses, SI Jaswinder Singh for further cross-examination of these two cision of the case. petitioner before the trial court tion 311of Cr.P.C. to recall the

s r s f e o f y n , r o t e

i. T q e w ii. T p c

¶33dated07.03 two witne ASJ, Karn

¶34evident tha to the witn the petitio bald averm just decisi The Petitio the specif counsel w outcome o of Cr.P.C.

The previous counsel did no questions to the official witn engaged a new counsel who witnesses. The questions which were allege pertain to the aspects of recov compliance of mandatory statuto This Court has carefully

3.2024 filed under Section 311 esses sought to be recalled and nal dismissing the said applicatio From the bare perusal of the at the counsel for the defence d nesses) sought to be re-examine oner states were purportedly om ments that the re-calling of thes ion of the case without any rele oner neither before the Trial Co fic questions which mere omi which had to essentially put be of the case. The application date was apparently an attempt to pr

ot ask some material/relevant nesses and now the petitioner shall cross examine the two edly not asked to these witnesses ery of the Contraband and the ory provisions of the NDPS act. gone through the application of Cr.P.C, the testimony of the the order dated 07.03.2024 of on of the petitioner. testimony of the witnesses (it is did put all the relevant questions d including the questions which mitted, the petitioner has made se witnesses is essential for the evant material to back the same. ourt nor before this Court stated itted by the previous defence efore the witnesses for the just d 07.03.2024 under Section 311 rocrastinate the trial considering

t r o s e n e f s s h e e . d e t

g

that this ap case as:- i. N o t ii. T y iii. P n t ASJ, Karn

¶38judgment, District an of Chandi below.

¶39observatio Zahira Ha

pplication would have no bearing No new fact which was not earlie or the party claiming recall ca termed as material; and The application was made afte year; and Plain averments were made wit non-recalling of the witnesses w the accused and would conseque Finding no infirmity in the or nal the present petition is dismiss Since, guidelines are issued the Registry is directed to send nd Sessions Courts in the states igarh for necessary compliance While parting it is pertinent t on made by the Hon'ble Suprem abibulla H. Sheikh (supra):-

g on the ultimate outcome of the er in the knowledge of the Court ame to the fore, which can be er the elapse of more than one thout any robust proof that the would result in grave prejudice to ntly result in failure of justice. rder dated 07.03.2024 passed by sed. as detailed in para 29 of this d a copy of this order to all the of Punjab, Haryana and the UT e and sensitizing all the Courts to remind the Trial Courts of the me Court in the landmark case of

e t e e e o y s e T s e f

"It i a co is d play and them such trust inve the defi appr the are justi

May 30, 2 manju

is also important to note the activ ourt in a criminal trial. The court doing his duties to the utmos y. Courts have to ensure that th that the might or authority of mselves or their men. It should b h powers which under the Con t for the public and societ estigation or prosecution is visib veil trying to hide the reali iciencies, courts have to deal w ropriately within the framework prosecutor as of the court to en brought on record so that ther ice."

2024

Whether speaking/reasoned:-Whether Reportable:-

ve role which is to be played by t must ensure that the Prosecutor st level of efficiency and fair he accused persons are punished the State are not used to shield be ensured that they do not wield stitution has to be held only in ty at large. If deficiency in ble or can be perceived by lifting ities or covering the obvious with the same with an iron hand of law. It is as much the duty of nsure that full and material facts re might not be miscarriage of

(ALOK JAIN)

JUDGE

y r r d d d n n g s d f s f