Petitioner challenged the trial court's order recalling a defence witness for further cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC. The Bench held the order was legal as the proposed questions were material and held the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Crl.Misc.No.M-28198 of 2012.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh.
Crl.Misc.No.M-28198 of 2012. Date of Decision:- 06.11.2012.
Ram Niwas
Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
Respondents.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.
Present: - Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for for the petitioner.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.
Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is for quashing the order dated 07.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mahendergarh, whereby the application dated 06.06.2012 (Annexure P-2) filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for recalling DW-5 for further crossexamination was allowed.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.3 were being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. After closure of the prosecution
Crl.Misc.No.M-28198 of 2012. 2
evidence and examination of the accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was posted for defence evidence. Ram Niwas son of Peeru Ram appeared as DW5 on 14.05.2012. Learned APP cross examined the said defence witness. On 06.06.2012, the application dated 06.06.2012 (Annexure P-2) was presented by the learned APP for summoning of DW-5 for further cross-examination with the plea that material questions affecting the merits of the case were inadvertently left to be put to the said witness. Learned trial court vide order dated 07.08.2012 allowed the said application and ordered that Ram Niwas (DW-5) be recalled for the purpose of further cross examination by learned APP. The said order is under challenge before this court.
Heard.
Learned APP apprised the learned trial court of the questions to be put to DW5 Ram Niwas. Learned trial court was satisfied that the questions to be put to the said defence witness during the further cross examination were material in nature.
It is now crystal clear that the court has been empowered to summon any person as a witness at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings provided such
Crl.Misc.No.M-28198 of 2012.
3
summoning of a witness is essential for the just decision of the case.
A perusal of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly reveals that any court may, at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential for the just decision of the case.
While allowing the application moved by the learned APP, the learned trial court had kept in mind the parameters laid down under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned court below satisfied itself with regard to the questions to be put to DW-5 who was to be summoned for further cross examination and finding that the said questions were material in nature and essential for just decision of the case, it passed the impugned order.
Keeping in view of totality of the circumstances of the case and the reasons recorded by the learned trial court for allowing the application under Section 311 of the Code of
4
Crl.Misc.No.M-28198 of 2012.
Criminal Procedure, no ground to interfere withthe impugned order by this court is made out while exercising its jurisdiction conferred by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Resultantly, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE
06.11.2012 Anoop
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order recalling a defence witness for further cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC.
Whether the questions proposed to be put to the defence witness were material and essential for the just decision of the case.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Niwas
State of Haryana
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
