Criminal court power to call essential witness at any stage upheld, even after defence evidence closes.

Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is described as conferring a wide power on a criminal court, at any stage of inquiry or trial, to summon, examine, recall or re-examine a witness when the evidence is essential for a just decision. The text explains that this power is not cut down merely because the defence has closed its case or because the evidence may incidentally support the prosecution, so long as it is not used to unfairly fill a lacuna. Applied to the customs prosecution discussed, the later examination of the customs officer was treated as properly admitted evidence, and the conviction under the Customs Act was said to rest on sufficient admissible material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the court was competent under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon and examine the customs officer after the defence had closed its evidence. (ii) Whether the conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 could stand on the evidence after such examination.

Issue (i): Whether the court was competent under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon and examine the customs officer after the defence had closed its evidence.

Analysis: Section 540 confers a wide power on the court at any stage of the inquiry, trial, or other proceeding to summon, examine, recall, or re-examine a witness, and the corresponding power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reinforces the court's duty to seek proper proof of relevant facts. The controlling consideration is whether the evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The stage of the trial does not by itself limit the exercise of that power. The court may act even if the evidence may assist the prosecution, provided the purpose is not to unfairly fill a lacuna but to secure a just decision.

Conclusion: The court was competent to summon and examine the customs officer, and the evidence was rightly received.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 could stand on the evidence after such examination.

Analysis: The search, seizure, and surrounding circumstances indicated a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled. The officer who effected the seizure had not been examined initially, and his evidence was relevant to establish the basis of seizure and the statutory burden scheme under the Customs Act, 1962. Once his evidence was properly admitted, the record supported the conclusion that the goods were liable to confiscation and that the accused failed to rebut the incriminating circumstances. The conviction therefore rested on admissible and sufficient evidence.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms the breadth of the court's power to call essential evidence at any stage where required for a just result, and the conviction based on the admitted evidence was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal court may, at any stage of the trial, summon or recall a witness if the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case, and such power is not curtailed merely because the defence has closed or because the evidence may incidentally support the prosecution.

---