TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 948
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 138 NI Act with allegations that four cheques issued by petitioner No. 1 towards discharge of its liability were dishonoured with remarks "account closed/transferred to" vide bank return memo dated 20.05.2015. Petitioner did not make the payment despite demand notices dated 02.06.2015 and 20.06.2015. 3. Petitioners were summoned by the trial court vide order dated 20.08.2015. Notice under Section 251 Cr. PC was served upon the petitioner on 28.05.2019. Petitioners filed an application under Section 145 (2) NI Act, which was allowed and the case was listed for cross examination of respondent No. 2. Complainant evidence was closed vide order dated 24.05.2023. Thereafter, statement under Section 313 of the Code was recorded on 20.09.2023. Defence evidence was closed vide order dated 16.01.2024. 4. Petitioners filed an application under Section 311 of the Code with fresh Vakalatnama of the counsel. In the meanwhile, another application was filed by respondent No. 2 for change of name of respondent from Gemalto Digital Security Pvt. Ltd. to Thales Dis India Private Limited, which was allowed vide order dated 27.06.2024. 5. The application of the petitioners under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be exercised judicially. The Apex Court in its judgments in Vijay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (2011) 8 SCC 136, State (NCT of Delhi Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016) 2 SCC 402 and Ratanlal Vs. Prahlad Jat (2017) 9 SCC 340, has held that the recall of witness is not a matter of course and power under Section 311 of the Code has to be exercised judiciously, with caution and circumspection and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Such discretionary power has to be exercised on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case and has to be balanced carefully with considerations. Recently, in Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1086, the Supreme Court adverted to a few decisions of recent vintage. The relevant paras of the judgment are extracted below:- 9. Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "CrPC") has engaged this Court's attention before. We will advert to a few decisions of recent vintage. While overturning an order of the High Court allowing an application for recall of a witness, which was rejected by the trial Court, this Court held as under, in Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC 340: '17. In order to ena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mproper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is "at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code". It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind." 20. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held thus : (SCC pp. 404g-405a) "... Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary "for ensuring fair trial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the evidence, whilst also ensuring no prejudice is caused to anyone. A note of caution was sounded in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328 as under: '10. The first part of this section which is permissive gives purely discretionary authority to the criminal court and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part, which is mandatory, imposes an obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. 11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this section ....