Material defence evidence under Section 311 CrPC must be allowed when needed for fair adjudication and accurate fact-finding.

Section 311 CrPC must be used to secure material evidence essential for a fair and just adjudication, particularly where the earlier refusal rests on a factual mistake. The HC held that the accused could summon the complainant's relevant income tax returns because they related to the disputed loan period and were material to the defence. It also held that the accused was entitled to another opportunity to deposit costs and examine the State Bank of India clerk, as denial of further time would unjustly curtail defence evidence. The impugned orders were set aside and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused was entitled to summon the complainant's income tax returns for the relevant years by invoking the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the accused was entitled to another opportunity to deposit costs and examine the State Bank of India clerk.

Issue (i): Whether the accused was entitled to summon the complainant's income tax returns for the relevant years by invoking the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The power under Section 311 is wide and may be exercised at any stage where the evidence sought is necessary for a fair and just decision. The relevant income tax returns were for the period when the alleged loan transaction and interest payments were said to have occurred, whereas the returns already on record were for different years. Since the disputed returns were material to the defence version and the earlier refusal proceeded on an incorrect factual assumption, the request could not be declined.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to summon the relevant income tax returns, and the refusal was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused was entitled to another opportunity to deposit costs and examine the State Bank of India clerk.

Analysis: The denial of further time to deposit costs was found unjust in the circumstances, particularly in view of the contemporaneous cash crunch caused by demonetization. The opportunity to examine the witness formed part of the defence evidence and was necessary for a proper adjudication.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to another opportunity to deposit costs and examine the clerk.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside, the accused was permitted to lead the additional evidence sought, and the trial was directed to be concluded expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be exercised to permit material evidence essential for a fair and just adjudication, especially where refusal rests on a factual mistake or unjustly curtails the defence.

---