Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“Supreme Court Allows Recall of Witness, Says ‘Essential for the Just Decision of the Case’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, August 29, 2023 – In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India allowed the recall of a witness in a criminal trial, emphasizing that it is “essential for the just decision of the case.”

The bench, comprising Justice AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and Justice S.V.N. BHATTI, overturned the High Court of Punjab & Haryana’s decision, which had rejected the appellant Satbir Singh’s application for his recall as a witness for further examination.

The case revolved around the appellant’s complaint that ex-employees had stolen company data. The appellant sought to be recalled as a witness after a Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL) expert’s testimony lacked crucial data comparison. “Under the peculiar facts of the present case, the request for recall of the appellant under Section 311, CrPC was justified,” the bench observed.

The Court also clarified the timing for filing such applications, stating that the delay should be reckoned from the date the cause of action arose, not from the date of the first lodging of the complaint.

The Court directed that the trial should conclude within nine months from the date of this judgment. “We find that if opportunity is given for re-examination, respondents will not be prejudiced as they will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the appellant,” the bench noted.

This landmark judgment cited several past cases, including Ratanlal v Prahlad Jat and Harendra Rai v State of Bihar, to emphasize the judicial exercise of discretion under Section 311 of the CrPC to prevent failure of justice.

Legal experts believe this ruling will have far-reaching implications in how courts exercise their discretionary power under Section 311, CrPC, particularly in complex criminal cases requiring re-examination of witnesses.

Date of Decision: August 29, 2023

SATBIR SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.       

Latest Legal News