The court dismissed petitions seeking to reopen evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to introduce a reply notice missing during trial, ruling it would prejudice the accused and violate fair trial principles.
Petitions for reopening complainant's evidence and marking reply notice were 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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITIONS Nos.5373, 5374 and 5375 of 2012
COMMON ORDER:
The complainant in these matters is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittoor, refusing to allow petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for reopening the complainant’s evidence and for receiving reply notice said to have been issued by the accused. The complainant came up with the respective petitions in the lower Court after trial of the case is completed and when the matters were coming up for arguments. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the reply notice was received by the complainant from the counsel for the accused after filing of the respective complaints in the lower Court. It is further contended that the complainant’s advocate in the lower Court did not produce the same in Court at the appropriate stage as it was misplaced by him. The excuse for non-production of the reply notice is a lame excuse. It is true that a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be filed at any stage of the case and even when the matter is posted
for arguments. But it has to be seen whether the petition is intended to get just decision or with an intention to prejudice the case of the accused. By introducing the alleged reply notice now which is stated to contain admissions of the accused, the complainant wanted to demolish the defence version. The complainant cannot be allowed to do so to put the accused to surprise. Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not intended to fill up gaps in the complainant’s case and the complainant’s evidence. In case the reply notice is produced at the appropriate stage, the accused would have formulated his defence taking note of the contents of the alleged reply notice also. Having not produced the reply notice at the initial stage and having not supplied copy of the reply notice to the accused before starting of trial of the case, now the accused cannot be put to prejudice and suffer in his defence by production of the documents at the whims of the complainant. In that view of the matter, the lower Court came to the conclusion that the complainant cannot be allowed to put up a new case based on the reply notice. Though it is not a new case as such, it amounts to introducing a new document to the prejudice of defence of the accused and it is not permissible in law. The lower Court rightly
negatived the petitioner’s request for reopening the complainant’s
side for the purpose of marking the reply notice.
In the result, all the petitions are dismissed.
____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.
10th July 2012 Rns
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Section 311 Cr.P.C. permits reopening of evidence at the argument stage to introduce a reply notice without prejudice to the accused.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
