Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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