Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

“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