A Drafting Error Cannot Override Constitutional Rights: Rajasthan High Court Directs Correction In Udaipur Master Plan–2031 To Uphold Property Rights Uttering That a Woman Is a Prostitute in Public Can Amount to Abetment of Suicide: Bombay High Court Declines to Quash FIR Under Section 306 IPC PMLA | Stay on Predicate Offence Eclipses Money Laundering Probe; NBWs Cancelled for Cooperating Accused: Allahabad High Court Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus Not Applicable in Criminal Law: Patna High Court Mere Loan Default Doesn’t Justify Look Out Circular Without Criminality: Delhi High Court Rejects Bank of Baroda’s Appeal Consent, Not Calendar, Governs Divorce by Mutual Consent: Delhi High Court Says Separation and Cooling-Off Periods Under Hindu Marriage Act Can Be Waived Termination Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Gauhati High Court Quashes Railway Contract Rescission Right To Speedy Trial Cannot Override Statutory Bar Of NDPS Act: J&K High Court Denies Bail For Commercial Drug Offence Despite 3.5 Years Custody Inheritance Isn’t Lost in Whispered Settlements: Kerala High Court Says Oral Family Claims Can’t Defeat Sisters’ Equal Share Suit Barred by Law Must Be Dismissed at Threshold – No Evidence Needed When Limitation is Clear from the Plaint Itself: Madhya Pradesh High Court Admission That Plaintiff’s Gate Opens onto Disputed Land Clinches Case — No Ownership Proven, Common Passage Must Be Preserved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Axis Bank Must Refund ₹8.20 Crores Withdrawn in Violation of Trial Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Reasserts Judicial Supremacy Permissive Possession Is Not Adverse Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Overturns Ownership Claim Over Agricultural Land Registered Sale Deeds Carry Presumption of Ownership; Benami Plea Unsustainable Without Cogent Proof: Madras High Court Grants Partition Eligibility Criteria Must Have Rational Nexus With Objective: Orissa High Court Upholds ₹9 Crore Turnover Requirement In Hospital Diet Tender Mere Multiplicity of Ailments Is Not Ground for Bail Under UAPA: J&K High Court Dismisses Medical Bail Plea of Mian Abdul Qayoom Executing Court Cannot Direct Third Parties to Enforce Arbitral Orders Beyond Their Legal Limits: Delhi High Court Sets Aside CoA Order Against Jamia Hamdard Administrative Officer Can’t Question Validity of Registered Adoption Deed: Allahabad High Court Quashes Rejection of Compassionate Appointment Delay of Over Two Months in Eyewitness Disclosure is Inexplicable and Erodes the Core of the Prosecution’s Case: Bombay High Court Acquits Two Men Convicted of Murder Litigants Must Not Suffer for Clerical Errors Committed by the Court: Bombay High Court Allows Delayed Defence in Sibling Defamation Suit

“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