Section 311 CrPC requires witness re-examination when essential to a just decision; technical objections cannot defeat fairness.

Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to summon, examine, recall or re-examine a witness, and the power becomes mandatory when further evidence is essential to a just decision and to avoid failure of justice. A request for re-examination cannot be refused merely because a new counsel has been engaged or because earlier cross-examination was incomplete. Applying that standard, the court found that the trial court had not used the correct legal test and the petitioner was entitled to one effective opportunity to re-examine the witness, subject to terms. The petition was allowed and the trial court was directed to grant the opportunity in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to re-examine the witness.

Analysis: Section 311 confers a wide power on the Court to summon, examine, recall, or re-examine a witness, and the power becomes obligatory where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The decisive consideration is whether further examination is necessary to avoid failure of justice, and the request cannot be rejected merely because a new counsel has been engaged or because earlier cross-examination was incomplete. On the facts, the request was made on the basis that material questions had not been put by earlier counsel, and the trial court did not apply the correct legal standard under Section 311.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to one effective opportunity to re-examine the witness, subject to terms imposed by the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the trial court was directed to afford the petitioner the requested opportunity in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be allowed where further examination of a witness is essential to the just decision of the case, and it cannot be rejected on a technical ground such as change of counsel alone.

---