TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the appellant had locus standi to maintain the special leave petition; (ii) whether the order allowing recall and re-examination of witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified.
Issue (i): whether the appellant had locus standi to maintain the special leave petition.
Analysis: In criminal jurisprudence, the concept of locus standi is not applied in the same rigid manner as in civil matters. The right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 is not confined to the State, and an aggrieved person who is not a stranger to the proceedings may seek special leave.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to maintain the special leave petition.
Issue (ii): whether the order allowing recall and re-examination of witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified.
Analysis: Section 311 confers wide power to summon, recall, or re-examine a witness, but the power must be exercised judicially, for strong and valid reasons, and only when the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. Delay in seeking recall is a material circumstance, and recall is not to be granted as a matter of course. On the facts, the witnesses had already been examined and cross-examined, had earlier supported the prosecution, and the applications were filed after a substantial delay without satisfactory explanation.
Conclusion: The order permitting recall and re-examination was not justified and was rightly rejected by the Sessions Judge.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed without taking into account the later evidence of the two witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The discretionary power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to recall or re-examine a witness can be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and on a showing that the evidence is necessary for a just decision; a belated recall application without satisfactory explanation may be rejected.
TaxTMI 
