Section 311 CrPC requires essential defence evidence; vague requests to summon a bank employee and documents were properly refused.

The HC reiterated that Section 311 CrPC confers a wide but judicially controlled power to summon witnesses or documents, and it may be exercised only where the proposed evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. Because the applicant did not explain why the bank employee was required, did not identify the documents sought, and failed to show their necessity for the defence, the trial court was justified in rejecting the request. The rejection was therefore upheld, as speculative or unsupported summons cannot be used to secure evidence without demonstrating its relevance and essentiality.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for summoning a bank employee and documents as defence evidence was justified.

Analysis: The power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is wide, but it must be exercised judicially and only when the evidence sought is essential to the just decision of the case. The applicant did not specify the purpose for which the bank employee was required, did not identify the documents sought to be summoned, and failed to show the essentiality of the proposed evidence for his defence. In the absence of a demonstrated necessity, the trial court was justified in declining the request. The governing principles require the court to act to secure truth and a fair trial, but not to permit speculative or unsupported summons of witnesses and documents.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An application to summon a witness or documents under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be allowed only when the party shows that the proposed evidence is essential to the just decision of the case; a vague or unsupported request may validly be refused.

---