MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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,

Similar News