UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Section 311 CrPC is aimed at justice and is not merely limited to aiding the prosecution or defence: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana today dismissed a petition challenging the recall of a defence witness in a cheque dishonour case, emphasizing the importance of fair trial and just decision.

The petitioner, Tej Ram, had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking to quash an order that allowed the recall of a defence witness under Section 311 of the CrPC in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case pertained to a cheque issued by the respondent, Shamsher Singh, which was dishonoured due to ‘insufficient funds’.

The petitioner completed his evidence by examining two witnesses. The accused, in his defence, examined three witnesses and tendered documents. An initial application by the accused to recall the petitioner for further cross-examination was withdrawn. Subsequently, the accused filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC to recall his defence witness, DW2, Jasvir Singh, for further evidence. The petitioner contested this, alleging misuse of Section 311 CrPC to fill lacunae and cause a re-trial.

Justice Deepak Gupta, in his detailed analysis, referred to various precedents emphasizing the purpose of Section 311 CrPC. He highlighted that this section is aimed at justice and is not merely limited to aiding the prosecution or defence. The court found that the recall application was not an attempt to fill a lacuna or delay the trial but was aimed at providing the accused a fair opportunity to counter the petitioner’s suggestion that he wasn’t working as a commission agent. The judge dismissed the petition as meritless, asserting the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s order allowing the recall of the defence witness. The court emphasized that the application was moved to provide the accused a fair opportunity to rebut the petitioner’s case, thus supporting the ethos of a fair trial.

 Date of Decision: February 16, 2024.

Tej Ram Vs. Shamsher Singh,

Latest Legal News