Section 311 CrPC Allows Recalling of Witness Along with Electronic Evidence: P&H High Court Upholds Order Permitting Production of Pen Drive in Trial

“Truth is the guiding star in any judicial proceeding; Section 311 CrPC is not to benefit either side but to discover the truth” —  Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a trial court’s decision permitting the complainant to tender a pen drive containing crucial electronic evidence during trial. Justice Mandeep Pannu upheld the Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 19.07.2025, holding that Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, empowers a court to summon or recall witnesses and allow production of relevant evidence — including electronic records — if essential for a just decision of the case.

The petitioner, accused in an FIR registered under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 294 (obscene acts), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, sought to overturn the trial court’s order allowing the complainant to introduce a pen drive during examination-in-chief, accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, after an earlier CD of the same conversation had become unreadable.

Electronic Evidence Accompanied by 65-B Certificate Can Be Admitted at Any Stage, Says Court

Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that Section 311 CrPC was limited to summoning or recalling witnesses and not the production of documents, the Court held that:

“When a witness is permitted to be examined or recalled, the production of material relevant to his testimony is incidental to the exercise of such power, provided the Court is satisfied that the same is necessary for a just decision.” [Para 10]

Importantly, the High Court noted that objections to the authenticity, admissibility, or reliability of the electronic evidence must be raised during trial and would be determined at the stage of appreciation of evidence, not at the threshold under Section 311.

“The question of genuineness, reliability and evidentiary value of the pen drive is a matter to be adjudicated at the stage of appreciation of evidence and cannot be a ground to reject the application at the threshold.” [Para 10]

Filling Lacunae Not a Ground to Reject Essential Evidence

The petitioner had contended that permitting the pen drive amounted to filling lacunae in the prosecution case. However, the Court found this argument unpersuasive, stating:

“The mere fact that the evidence sought to be brought on record may strengthen the prosecution case or that it was not produced earlier is not, by itself, a ground to reject an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.” [Para 8]

Instead, the test under Section 311 CrPC is whether the proposed evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The Court emphasized that full opportunity of cross-examination would serve as an adequate safeguard for the accused.

“The Court is also required to ensure that no serious prejudice is caused to the accused, and such prejudice is adequately safeguarded by granting full opportunity of cross-examination.” [Para 8]

Power Under Section 311 CrPC Is Broad and Purpose-Driven

The Court reaffirmed that Section 311 CrPC is “couched in the widest possible terms” and is meant to serve the interests of justice, not the interests of any particular party. Observing that truth is the ultimate objective in a trial, the Court noted:

“The object of the provision is not to benefit either the prosecution or the defence, but to enable the Court to discover the truth.” [Para 7]

On these principles, the trial court had rightly allowed the complainant to introduce the pen drive and accompanying certificate during examination-in-chief, particularly after the original CD had become unreadable.

No Illegality or Prejudice Shown, Revision Petition Dismissed

Finding no jurisdictional error, perversity, or material irregularity in the trial court’s exercise of discretion, the High Court concluded that the impugned order was well-reasoned and in line with judicial principles. It specifically noted:

“This Court does not find that the learned trial Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or has acted with material irregularity. The impugned order reflects proper application of mind and is in consonance with the settled principles governing Section 311 Cr.P.C.” [Para 11]

Further, it observed that the accused had not demonstrated any irreversible prejudice arising from the admission of the pen drive. Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Date of Decision: 15 January 2026