Inherent jurisdiction will not disturb a belated refusal to recall witnesses absent illegality or impropriety.

A High Court will not ordinarily exercise inherent jurisdiction to interfere with a trial court's discretionary refusal to recall panch witnesses where the request is made after prosecution evidence has closed and at a belated stage. The trial court's view that it is not meant to collect evidence for a party, and that the complainant must bear the consequences of non-production of its witnesses, was found to disclose no illegality or impropriety. As no sufficient ground for interference was shown, the request to summon or recall the witnesses was declined and the impugned order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere in exercise of inherent jurisdiction with the trial court's refusal to recall and examine the panch witnesses under the power to summon or recall witnesses.

Analysis: The application for recalling the panch witnesses was moved after the prosecution evidence had already been closed and at a belated stage. The trial court had declined the request, noting that the court is not meant to collect evidence on behalf of a party and that the complainant would bear the legal consequences of non-production of the witnesses. On the facts, no illegality or impropriety was shown in the order refusing recall of the witnesses, and no ground was made out for interference in inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The refusal to summon or recall the panch witnesses was upheld, and interference under Section 482 was declined.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the order of the trial court was rejected, and the impugned order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with a discretionary order refusing recall of witnesses when the request is made at a belated stage and no illegality or impropriety is shown.

---