CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Filling Lacunae in Defense, Not Essential for Just Decision: High Court Rejects Plea for Recall and Examination of Defense Witnesses in NI Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking the recall and examination of defense witnesses in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code was an attempt to fill gaps in the petitioner's case and not essential for a just decision.

The crux of the judgment was the interpretation and application of Section 311 Cr.P.C., which deals with the power of a court to summon, recall, or re-examine any person as a witness if it considers their testimony essential for a just decision of the case.

The petitioner, facing charges under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonour of a cheque, had moved an application for recalling DW1 Mukesh and summoning Mr. K.L. Sharma, Advocate, as defense witnesses. The lower courts dismissed this application, leading to the present petition.

Court Assessment: Recall and Examination of Witnesses: The High Court found that the petitioner did not establish the essentiality of these witnesses' testimonies for a just decision. The court also noted that conversations between an advocate and a client are privileged, thus deeming it inappropriate to summon the advocate for testimony to the disadvantage of the complainant.

Scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C.: The court meticulously examined the scope of Section 311, emphasizing judicious and essential use of this power. Citing various Supreme Court precedents, the court highlighted that this power should not be exercised to fill lacunae in the defense's case or delay trial proceedings.

Decision to Dismiss Application: Concluding that the conditions for invoking Section 311 were not met, the High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, reinforcing the need for cautious and judicious use of judicial discretion in recalling and examining witnesses.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions and underscoring the importance of prudence in judicial discretion, especially concerning the recall and examination of witnesses in the interest of a just adjudication.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2024

Ram Narayan v. State of Haryana and another

Latest Legal News