Inherent writ jurisdiction cannot bypass withdrawn revisions; Section 311 recall was upheld for witnesses essential to justice.

The High Court held that inherent writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass the statutory bar after the earlier revision applications against the same interlocutory order had been withdrawn, and no special circumstances showing abuse of process or miscarriage of justice were established. It further held that Section 311 CrPC permits recall and re-examination of witnesses where their evidence is essential to a just decision; the witnesses were eye-witnesses or injured witnesses, their hostility was explained by alleged threats, and the request was not a mere attempt to fill a genuine lacuna. The order allowing recall of the four witnesses was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court were maintainable after withdrawal of the earlier revision applications. (ii) Whether the prosecution could invoke Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to recall and re-examine witnesses who had earlier turned hostile.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court were maintainable after withdrawal of the earlier revision applications.

Analysis: The petitions had earlier challenged the same interlocutory order by criminal revision applications, which were withdrawn. In that situation, the High Court relied on the principle that inherent jurisdiction is not ordinarily to be used to circumvent the statutory bar on revision, and that such power is to be exercised sparingly and only where special circumstances show failure of justice or abuse of process. No such special circumstances were established.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable in the circumstances.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution could invoke Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to recall and re-examine witnesses who had earlier turned hostile.

Analysis: Section 311 empowers the court to recall and re-examine any witness where the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. The witnesses had already given statements under Section 161 and were shown to be eye-witnesses and, in some cases, injured witnesses. Their earlier hostility was explained by alleged threats, and permitting their re-examination would not amount to filling up a true lacuna in the prosecution case. The court also found no mala fides or prejudice that could not be met by cross-examination.

Conclusion: The recall and re-examination of the witnesses was permissible and justified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order allowing recall of the four witnesses was upheld, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be used to bypass the statutory limitation on revision except in special circumstances showing abuse of process or miscarriage of justice, and Section 311 permits recall of a witness when the evidence is essential for a just decision and the request is not a mere attempt to fill a genuine lacuna.

---