Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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