Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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