Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

“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