Witness recall power upheld where clarification was needed and no serious prejudice or miscarriage of justice was shown.

The wide power to recall or re-examine a witness may be exercised to secure the ends of justice and enable the court to reach the truth. Such recall does not amount to filling a lacuna unless it causes serious prejudice to the accused and results in miscarriage of justice. On the facts, the defence had already placed the relevant visitor register extracts on record, and recall was sought only to clarify disputed entries. As no illegality, arbitrariness, perversity, or prejudice warranting interference was shown, the order allowing recall of the witnesses was upheld and interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order permitting recall and re-examination of witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure called for interference in writ and inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is wide and is to be exercised to secure the ends of justice by enabling the court to reach the truth and obtain proper proof of facts necessary for a just decision. Recall or re-examination of a witness does not amount to filling a lacuna unless it is shown to cause serious prejudice to the accused and result in miscarriage of justice. Here, the defence had already placed the relevant visitor register extracts on record and the request to recall the witnesses was made to clarify the disputed entries. No illegality, arbitrariness, perversity, or prejudice warranting interference was shown.

Conclusion: The order allowing recall of the witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was upheld and interference was declined; the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be invoked at any stage to recall or examine a witness if the evidence is essential for a just decision, unless the exercise of that power would cause serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice.

---