Speedy trial and witness recall under Section 311 CrPC were upheld where repeated defaults caused prolonged delay.

Repeated non-appearance of prosecution witnesses and prolonged delay at the pre-charge evidence stage justified refusal to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC. The record showed repeated defaults in producing witnesses despite multiple opportunities, including non-compliance with costs and absence on dates fixed for evidence. In these circumstances, the trial court was entitled to decline recall to prevent further delay, and the need to protect the accused's right to a speedy trial supported that approach. The application was therefore correctly dismissed and the refusal to recall witnesses was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the application for recalling witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified in view of the repeated non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses and the need to ensure a speedy trial.

Analysis: The complaint had remained at the stage of pre-charge evidence for several years, yet only a few witnesses were examined, and that too partly. The record showed repeated defaults by the petitioner in producing witnesses despite repeated opportunities, including non-compliance with costs and continued absence on dates fixed for evidence. In such circumstances, the trial court was entitled to refuse recall of witnesses. The decision also accords with the principle that the right to a speedy trial must be protected and that the trial court may use the powers available under the criminal procedure framework to prevent undue delay and harassment.

Conclusion: The refusal to recall the witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was upheld and the application was correctly dismissed.

---