Dismissed

Adil v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC10 Jul 2026CRLR/518/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused challenged rejection of his Section 311 Cr.P.C. application to recall a prosecution witness for further cross-examination filed nearly a year after cross-examination, without disclosing the proposed questions. The High Court held the trial court exercised its discretion judiciously with cogent reasons and dismissed the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

CRLR/518/2026

Adil
………..Revisionist

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand…….Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel

for the revisionist.

2.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for
the State.

3.
Learned counsel for the revisionist
would submit that an F.I.R. was lodged
against 22 named persons and 100–150

unknown
persons
alleging
that
the

accused persons, being enraged by the
alleged desecration of the Holy Quran, had

formed
an
unlawful
assembly
and
committed the offences in question; that,

upon completion of the investigation, a
chargesheet was submitted, whereafter

cognizance was taken and the accused

persons
were
summoned;
that,

subsequently, the case was committed to
the Court of Sessions for trial; that, PW1,

Constable
Yogendra
Singh,
presently

posted at Police Station Bhagwanpur,

District Haridwar, was examined before
the learned trial Court on 13.06.2025 and
was duly cross-examined by the defence.
However, after the completion of his cross-
examination, it came to the notice of the
revisionist and his counsel, during the
course of further consultation, that certain material and relevant questions, essential
for an effective defence, had inadvertently
remained omitted and, therefore, could
not be put to the witness during his cross-
examination.
4. Learned counsel would further
submit that, in the aforesaid
circumstances, the revisionist/accused
moved an application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. on 02.06.2026 before the learned
trial Court seeking recall of PW1,
Constable Yogendra Singh, for the limited
purpose of further cross-examination;
that, the learned trial Court, by the
impugned order dated 02.06.2026,
rejected the said application primarily on
the grounds that the revisionist had not
disclosed the specific questions proposed
to be put to the witness and that this
Court had directed the trial to be
concluded expeditiously within six
months; that, the impugned order is

District Haridwar, was examined before

the learned trial Court on 13.06.2025 and

was duly cross-examined by the defence.

However, after the completion of his cross-

examination, it came to the notice of the

revisionist and his counsel, during the

course of further consultation, that certain
material and relevant questions, essential

for an effective defence, had inadvertently

remained omitted and, therefore, could

not be put to the witness during his cross-

examination.

4.
Learned
counsel
would
further

submit
that,
in
the
aforesaid

circumstances,
the
revisionist/accused

moved an application under Section 311

Cr.P.C. on 02.06.2026 before the learned

trial
Court
seeking
recall
of
PW1,

Constable Yogendra Singh, for the limited

purpose
of
further
cross-examination;

that, the learned trial Court, by the

impugned
order
dated
02.06.2026,

rejected the said application primarily on

the grounds that the revisionist had not

disclosed the specific questions proposed

to be put to the witness and that this

Court had directed the trial to be

concluded
expeditiously
within
six

months; that, the impugned order is

illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law,
being a non-speaking and unreasoned
order.
5. Learned counsel would further
submit that PW1 is a material prosecution
witness and his further cross-examination
is necessary for a just adjudication of the
case. It is argued that the learned trial
Court failed to record any cogent, specific
or legally sustainable reasons for declining
the prayer for recalling the witness under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside
and the revisionist be afforded an
opportunity to further cross-examine PW1.
6. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent would
submit that the impugned order is a well-
reasoned and speaking order passed after
due consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case. It is submitted
that adequate and sufficient opportunity
had already been afforded to the
revisionist/accused to cross-examine
PW1, and no justification has been shown
for recalling the witness at such a belated
stage. It is, therefore, contended that the
impugned order does not suffer from any
jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity

illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law,

being a non-speaking and unreasoned

order.

5.
Learned
counsel
would
further

submit that PW1 is a material prosecution

witness and his further cross-examination

is necessary for a just adjudication of the

case. It is argued that the learned trial

Court failed to record any cogent, specific

or legally sustainable reasons for declining

the prayer for recalling the witness under

Section 311 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the

impugned order deserves to be set aside

and
the
revisionist
be
afforded
an

opportunity to further cross-examine PW1.

6.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel

appearing
for
the
respondent
would

submit that the impugned order is a well-

reasoned and speaking order passed after

due
consideration
of
the
facts
and

circumstances of the case. It is submitted

that adequate and sufficient opportunity

had
already
been
afforded
to
the

revisionist/accused
to
cross-examine

PW1, and no justification has been shown

for recalling the witness at such a belated

stage. It is, therefore, contended that the

impugned order does not suffer from any

jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity

warranting interference by this Court the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction	in .
7. Heard learned counsel for the par	ties
and perused the material available record.	on
9. Having heard learned counsel for	the
parties and upon perusal of the mate	rial
available on record, this Court finds t	hat
the revision arises out of an order wher	eby
the learned trial Court has rejected	the
application preferred by the revisio	nist
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking re	call
of PW1 Constable Yogendra Singh	for
further cross-examination.
10. The power conferred upon the Co	urt
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is undoubte	dly
wide and is intended to enable the Co	urt
to summon, recall or re-examine	any
witness if such evidence appears to	be
essential for the just decision of the ca	se.
However, the said power is discretion	ary
and is required to be exercised judiciou	sly
and not as a matter of course.	The
provision cannot be invoked merely	to
enable a party to fill up omissions	or
lacunae in its case or to rectify mista	kes
committed during the earlier cro	ss-
examination.
11. In the present case, the rec	ord

warranting interference by this Court
the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

in
.

7.
Heard learned counsel for the par

ties

and perused the material available
record.

9.
Having heard learned counsel for

the

parties and upon perusal of the mate

rial

available on record, this Court finds t

hat

the revision arises out of an order wher

eby

the learned trial Court has rejected

the

application preferred by the revisio

nist

under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking re

call

of PW1 Constable Yogendra Singh

for

further cross-examination.

10. The power conferred upon the Co

urt

under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is undoubte

dly

wide and is intended to enable the Co

urt

to summon, recall or re-examine

any

witness if such evidence appears to

essential for the just decision of the ca

se.

However, the said power is discretion

ary

and is required to be exercised judiciou

sly

and not as a matter of course.

The

provision cannot be invoked merely

enable a party to fill up omissions

lacunae in its case or to rectify mista

kes

committed
during
the
earlier
cro

ss-

examination.

11. In the present case, the rec

ord

reflects that PW1 Constable Yogendra
Singh was examined before the learned
trial Court on 13.06.2025 and was duly
cross-examined at length by the defence.
The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. came to be filed nearly one year thereafter
on the bald assertion that certain
questions, which according to the defence
were material, could not be put to the
witness due to inadvertence. Significantly,
the application neither disclosed the
nature of the questions proposed to be put
to the witness nor explained how such
further cross-examination was
indispensable for arriving at a just
decision of the case. In the absence of any specific foundation, the learned trial Court
was justified in holding that no sufficient
ground had been made out for recalling
the witness.
12. The learned trial Court has also
taken note of the direction issued by this
Court for expeditious conclusion of the
trial within the stipulated period. While
such direction by itself may not be a
ground to reject an otherwise meritorious
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., in
the facts of the present case, where
adequate opportunity of cross-

reflects that PW1 Constable Yogendra

Singh was examined before the learned

trial Court on 13.06.2025 and was duly

cross-examined at length by the defence.

The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
came to be filed nearly one year thereafter

on
the
bald
assertion
that
certain

questions, which according to the defence

were material, could not be put to the

witness due to inadvertence. Significantly,

the application neither disclosed the

nature of the questions proposed to be put

to the witness nor explained how such

further
cross-examination
was

indispensable
for
arriving
at
a
just

decision of the case. In the absence of any
specific foundation, the learned trial Court

was justified in holding that no sufficient

ground had been made out for recalling

the witness.

12. The learned trial Court has also

taken note of the direction issued by this

Court for expeditious conclusion of the

trial within the stipulated period. While

such direction by itself may not be a

ground to reject an otherwise meritorious

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., in

the facts of the present case, where

adequate
opportunity
of
cross-

examination had already been affo	rded
and no specific prejudice or necessity	was
demonstrated, the rejection of	the
application cannot be said to be arbi or unreasonable.	trary
13. This Court is, therefore, of	the
considered opinion that the learned	trial
Court exercised its discretion	in
accordance with law and assigned co	gent
reasons for declining the prayer for r	ecall
of PW1. The impugned order ne	ither
suffers from any illegality nor occas	ions
any miscarriage of justice warran interference in revisional jurisdiction. 14. Consequently, the criminal revi being devoid of merit, is hereby dismis 15. There shall be no order as to cost	ting sion, sed. s.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 10.07.2026 mamta MAMT A RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e 584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebb d642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabf d54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a1 91648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.10 16:55:36 +05'30'

examination had already been affo

rded

and no specific prejudice or necessity

was

demonstrated,
the
rejection
of

the

application cannot be said to be arbi
or unreasonable.

trary

13. This Court is, therefore, of

the

considered opinion that the learned

trial

Court
exercised
its
discretion

accordance with law and assigned co

gent

reasons for declining the prayer for r

ecall

of PW1. The impugned order ne

ither

suffers from any illegality nor occas

ions

any miscarriage of justice warran
interference in revisional jurisdiction.
14. Consequently, the criminal revi
being devoid of merit, is hereby dismis
15. There shall be no order as to cost

ting
sion,
sed.
s.

(Alok Mahra, J.)
10.07.2026
mamta
MAMT
A
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e
584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebb
d642671329b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabf
d54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a1
91648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.07.10 16:55:36 +05'30'

Adil v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Adil v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parikshit Chaudhary Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sadhvi Renuka(Richa) Vs State of Uttarakhand

Masoom and Anr. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Reshu Vs State of Uttarakhand