2023 (10) TMI 383 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; trial court's decision for re-examination under Section 311 upheld.

The HC dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., affirming the trial court's decision to allow the re-examination of the complainant ... Dishonour of Cheque - application preferred by the respondent / complainant under Section 311 for re-examination of the complainant has been allowed - validity of new documents filed for examination - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that after completion of the trial, the respondent / complainant has obtained certain new documents, which relates to the Proprietorship of the petitioner / accused Firm. It is also alleged that letter of authority has also been issued in favour of the petitioner / accused. Therefore, in view of the new documents filed by the respondent re-examination of the petitioner / accused is just and proper. The scope and object of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. It is also notable that such power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, therefore, it is not a case of lacuna. Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of RAJENDRA PRASAD VERSUS THE NARCOTIC CELL THROUGH ITS OFFICER IN CHARGE, DELHI [1999 (7) TMI 707 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that We cannot therefore accept the contention of the appellant as a legal proposition that the Court cannot exercise power of re-summoning any witness if once that power was exercised, nor can the power be whittled down merely on the ground that prosecution discovered latches only when the defence highlighted them during final arguments. The power of the court is plenary to summon or even recall any witness at any stage of the case if the court considers it necessary for a just decision. On cumulative consideration of the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity, which may be called for any interference, therefore, present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether re-examination of an accused/witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be permitted after evidence is closed and at the stage of judgment where the complainant obtains new documents post-trial. 2. Whether delay in filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the pendency of long-running proceedings (since 2012) constitute bar to allowing re-examination. 3. The standard and scope of exercise of the Court's discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C.: whether the power is to be exercised judiciously, and how lacunae, inadvertence or prosecution/complainant shortcomings affect that exercise. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Permissibility of re-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. upon production of new documents post-trial Legal framework: Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any person as a witness at any stage of the inquiry, trial or other proceedings, if the Court considers that such evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied upon authoritative precedents which emphasize that the power under the corresponding old provision and Section 311 must be guided by exigency of the situation, fair play and requirements of justice; the Court may permit recalling/re-examining even after evidence is closed if new evidence is needed for a just decision. Interpretation and reasoning: The trial Court allowed re-examination because the complainant produced certain new documents from the bank relating to proprietorship and a letter of authority, which directly bore upon the accused's status and therefore were material to determine truth and ensure a just decision. The High Court reviewed the impugned order and found that the trial Court considered facts and materials and concluded that the new documents made re-examination just and proper. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court affirms that Section 311 may be exercised to permit re-examination when newly obtained material is relevant and essential for a just decision; the inquiry is whether the court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed for a just decision. Obiter - Ancillary remarks about permissibility being conditioned on fair play and exigency serve as guidance but flow from established ratio. Conclusion: Re-examination was properly allowed because the newly obtained bank documents were material and relevant to issues in the trial, satisfying the requirement that such evidence is essential to a just decision. Issue 2: Effect of delay and protracted pendency on the exercise of Section 311 discretion Legal framework: Delay in seeking recall/re-examination is a relevant factor; the Court must consider whether delay has been explained and whether allowing the application would subvert fairness or prejudice the other side. Precedent Treatment: The Court considered authorities holding that unexplained delay is an important factor and that delayed applications for recalling witnesses cannot be allowed unless satisfactorily explained. Simultaneously, precedents caution against rigidly denying opportunities to correct inadvertent omissions when justice demands rectification. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner argued mala fide delay and tactical applications aimed at prolonging proceedings; the Court noted these contentions but found that the trial Court, after hearing parties, concluded that the documents were newly obtained and material. The High Court observed that mere pendency since 2012 and delay alone do not automatically bar correction of material omissions where the new evidence is necessary for a just decision and was obtained after trial. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Delay is a significant consideration but not an absolute bar; what matters is whether delay is satisfactorily explained and whether the new evidence is necessary for justice. Obiter - Observations about litigation tactics and mala fide conduct are factual findings in this case rather than general rules. Conclusion: Delay and long pendency do not per se preclude re-examination; where new material relevant to justice is produced and the trial Court reasonably entertains the application, such relief can be allowed despite delay, provided discretion is not exercised arbitrarily. Issue 3: Standard and limits of judicial discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C.; concept of 'lacuna' in prosecution/complainant case Legal framework: The power under Section 311 is broad but must be exercised judiciously, not capriciously. The object is discovery of truth and rendering a just decision by obtaining all relevant facts and proper proof. The notion of 'lacuna' refers to an inherent weakness in a case; inadvertent omissions may be rectified if justice so requires. Precedent Treatment: The Court followed authority stating that inherent weaknesses in a party's case should generally benefit the accused, but oversight in the management of evidence is not irreparable lacuna; courts should be magnanimous in permitting rectification of inadvertent failures to produce proper evidence when required for justice. Another precedent emphasized that the exercise of power depends on the exigency of the situation and fair play. Interpretation and reasoning: Applying these principles, the trial Court assessed whether the newly produced documents were needed for a just decision and whether recall/re-examination would serve truth-finding rather than tactical delay. The High Court found that the trial Court applied its discretion in accordance with legal standards and thereby did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. The existence of possible lacunae in the complainant's case was not dispositive; what mattered was whether correction of such lacunae was necessary for justice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court reinforces that Section 311 must be used to secure truth and justice, and may be employed to correct inadvertent omissions; judicial discretion must be guided by exigency, fair play and the requirements of justice. Obiter - Illustrative comments about magnanimity and the administration of criminal justice function as interpretive guidance grounded in precedent. Conclusion: The trial Court acted within the permissible ambit of Section 311 by permitting re-examination to enable presentation of material newly obtained and necessary for a just decision; such exercise of discretion was neither arbitrary nor legally infirm. Final Disposition (conclusion as to impugned order) The Court concluded that the trial Court's order permitting re-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. after production of new bank documents was legally sustainable, the discretion was properly exercised in furtherance of discovering truth and rendering a just decision, and there was no ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; the petition challenging the order was dismissed.