Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 27.02.2026 vs Hp State Co-Operative Agricultural & … on 12 March, 2026
2026:HHC:6749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr. MMO No. 57 of 2026
Reserved on: 27.02.2026
Date of Decision: 12.03.2026.
Yashwant Singh ...Petitioner
of
Versus
HP State Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Bank Ltd.
rt ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior
Advocate, with Mr Surya
Chauhan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr Deepak Sharma, Advocate.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present petition is directed against the order
dated 09.12.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in Cr. Case
No. 61/3 of 2011 titled HP State Co-operative Agricultural Bank
Ltd. vs. Yashwant Singh vide which learned Trial Court allowed
the application filed by the respondent (complainant before the
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:6749
learned Trial Court) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for placing the
documents on record and examining the witnesses. (Parties shall
.
hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed
before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present
of
petition are that the complainant filed a complaint against the
accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an
offence
rt
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (NI Act). When the matter was listed before the
learned Trial Court, the complainant filed an application under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for filing the documents and summoning the
witnesses. It was asserted that the accused denied his signature
on the cheque, that he had opened a bank account in the name of
M/s Payal Automobiles with State Bank of Patiala, Ghumarwin or
that he had taken the agency/dealership of Sonalika International
Tractors. An FIR was registered against the accused, and a charge
sheet was filed before the Court. It was found during the
investigation that the accused had opened an account with the
State Bank of Patiala, Ghumarwin, in the name of M/s Payal
Automobiles. He had also issued the cheques. His signatures were
sent for verification to SFSL, and as per the report, the signatures
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:6749
tallied with the specimen signatures. He also filed an application
for bail in which he admitted that he was an agent/dealer of M/s
.
Sonalika International, and he had suffered a huge loss. The
record is to be produced to show the falsity of the plea taken by
the respondent/accused in the present case. Hence, it was prayed
that the present application be allowed, the documents be taken
of
on record, and the witnesses be summoned to prove the
documents. rt
3. The application was opposed by filing a reply taking
preliminary objection regarding the lack of maintainability. The
contents of the application were denied on merits. It was
specifically denied that the police had found that the accused had
opened an account with State Bank of Patiala, Ghumarwin, in the
name of M/s Payal Automobiles or had issued the cheque. The
application was filed for prolonging the proceedings. Hence, it
was prayed that the application be dismissed.
4. Learned Trial Court held that the evidence sought to
be produced was necessary to establish the plea taken before the
Court. Therefore, the application was allowed subject to the
payment of the cost of ₹800/-.
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:6749
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned
Trial Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition
.
asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in it as per the law and wrongly allowed the
application. The application was filed to fill the lacuna left by the
complainant. The complaint was filed in the year 2011, and the
of
evidence was completed on 02.09.2024. The application was filed
to delay the trial. Therefore, it was prayed that the present
rt
petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial
Court be set aside.
6. I have heard Mr Tara Singh Chauhan, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused, and Mr Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for
the respondent/complainant.
7. Mr Tara Singh Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court
erred in allowing the application. The application was filed to fill
the lacuna left by the complainant and prolong the proceedings.
Learned Trial Court erred in exercising the jurisdiction vested in
it. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:6749
order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied
upon the judgment of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau
.
of Investigation, Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019, decided on
04.01.2019, in support of his submission.
8. Mr Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the
of
respondent/complainant, had supported the order passed by the
learned Trial Court and submitted that no interference is required
with it.
rt
9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
10. It was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.N.
Patil v. K. Niranjan Kumar, (2021) 3 SCC 661: 2021 SCC OnLine SC
172, that the object underlying under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is that
there should not be any failure of justice due to the mistake of
either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving
ambiguity in the statements of witnesses examined from either
side. It was observed:
14. The object underlying Section 311 CrPC is that there may
not be a failure of justice on account of the mistake of
either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or
leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses
examined from either side. The determinative factor is::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
6
2026:HHC:6749whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. 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 the discretionary power
conferred under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised
judiciously, as it is always said, “the wider the power, the
greater is the necessity of caution while the exercise of
judicious discretion”.
xxxxx
of
16. This principle has been further reiterated in Mannan
Shaikh v. State of W.B., (2014) 13 SCC 59 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri)
547 and thereafter in Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC
340 : (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 729 and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v.
rt
CBI, (2019) 14 SCC 328 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 839. The relevant
paragraphs of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019) 14
SCC 328 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 839] are as under: (Swapan
Kumar Chatterjee case [Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI,
(2019) 14 SCC 328 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 839], SCC p. 331, paras
10-11)
“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
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
7
2026:HHC:6749
exercised with great caution and circumspection.
The court has the power under this section to even
recall witnesses for re-examination or further
.
examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but
the same has to be exercised after taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of each
case. The power under this provision shall not be
exercised if the court is of the view that the
application has been filed as an abuse of the process
of law.”
of
17. The aim of every court is to discover the truth.
Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions
which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to
rt
unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At
the same time, the discretionary power vested under
Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously for
strong and valid reasons and with caution and
circumspection to meet the ends of justice.”
11. It was held in State v. N. Seenivasagan, (2021) 14 SCC 1:
2021 SCC OnLine SC 212, that the true test under Section 311 is
whether the evidence of the person who is sought to be examined
or recalled is essential to the just decision of the case or not. It
was observed:
“12. In our view, having due regard to the nature and ambit
of Section 311 of the CrPC, it was appropriate and proper
that the applications filed by the prosecution ought to have
been allowed. Section 311 provides that any court may, at
any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under
CrPC, summon any person as a witness, examine any
person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness,
or recall and re-examine any person already examined and
the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:6749
examine any such person “if his evidence appears to it to
be essential to the just decision of the case”. The true test,
therefore, is whether it appears to the Court that the
.
evidence of such a person who is sought to be recalled is
essential to the just decision of the case.
13. In Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203 :
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 765, a two-Judge Bench of this Court
noted that an application under Section 311 could not be
rejected on the sole ground that the case had been pendingof
for an inordinate amount of time (ten years there). Rather,
it noted that: (SCC p. 209, para 13)“13. … the length/duration of a case cannot displace
the basic requirement of ensuring a just decision
rt
after taking all the necessary and material evidence
on record. In other words, the age of a case, by itself,cannot be decisive of the matter when a prayer is
made for examination of a material witness.
Speaking for the Court, Dinesh Maheshwari J.
expounded on the principles underlying Section 311
in the following terms: (Manju Devi case [Manju Devi
v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203: (2019) 2 SCC
(Cri) 765], SCC pp. 207-08, para 10)
“10. It needs hardly any emphasis that the discretionary
powers like those under Section 311CrPC are essentially
intended to ensure that every necessary and appropriate
measure is taken by the Court to keep the record straight
and to clear any ambiguity insofar as the evidence is
concerned, as also to ensure that no prejudice is caused to
anyone. The principles underlying Section 311CrPC and
amplitude of the powers of the court thereunder have been
explained by this Court in several decisions [Vide Mohanlal
Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271: 1991 SCC
(Cri) 595; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat,
(2004) 4 SCC 158: 2004 SCC (Cri) 999; Mina Lalita Baruwa v.
State of Orissa, (2013) 16 SCC 173 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 218;
Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461 :
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:6749
(2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 256 and Natasha Singh v. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC
741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828]. In Natasha Singh v. CBI
[Natasha Singh v. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri).
828], though the application for examination of witnesses
was filed by the accused but, on the principles relating to
the exercise of powers under Section 311, this Court
observed, inter alia, as under : (Natasha Singh case [Natasha
Singh v. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828], SCC
pp. 746 & 748-49, paras 8 & 15)
of
‘8. Section 311CrPC empowers the court to summon a
material witness, or to examine a person present at
“any stage” of “any enquiry”, or “trial”, or “any
other proceedings” under CrPC, or to summon any
rt
person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any
person who has already been examined if his
evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of
a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, CrPC has
conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the
court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be
exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power
of the court in this context is very wide, and in the
exercise of the same, it may summon any person as a
witness at any stage of the trial or other proceedings.
The court is competent to exercise such power even
suo motu if no such application has been filed by
either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy
itself that it was in fact essential to examine such a
witness, or to recall him for further examination, in
order to arrive at a just decision of the case.
***
15. The scope and object of the provision 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.
Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously
or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:6749
such power may lead to undesirable results. An application
under Section 311CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a
lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or
.
to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious
prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair
advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional
evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial or to
change the nature of the case against either of the parties.
Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence
that is likely to be tendered by a witness is germane to the
of
issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal, however, must
be given to the other party. The power conferred under
Section 311CrPC must therefore be invoked by the court
rt
only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and
valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great
caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as
“any court”, “at any stage”, “or any enquiry, trial or other
proceedings”, “any person” and “any such person” clearly
spells out that the provisions of this section have been
expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the
discretion of the court in any way. There is thus no escape
if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just
decision of the case. The determinative factor should
therefore be whether the summoning/recalling of the said
witness is, in fact, essential to the just decision of the
case.” (emphasis in original)”
12. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Varsha Garg v. State of M.P., (2023) 19 SCC 646: 2022 SCC OnLine SC
986 that the Court has the jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to
summon any witness, recall or re-examine any person for the just
decision of the case. It was observed at page 659: –
31. Having clarified that the bar under Section 301 is
inapplicable and that the appellant is well placed to pursue::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:6749this appeal, we now examine Section 311 of CrPC. Section
311 provides that the court “may”:
(i) Summon any person as a witness or to examine
.
any person in attendance, though not summoned as
a witness; and
(ii) Recall and re-examine any person who has
already been examined.
This power can be exercised at any stage of any inquiry,
trial or other proceeding under the CrPC. The latter part of
of
Section 311 states that the court “shall” summon and
examine or recall and re-examine any such person “if his
evidence appears to the court to be essential to the just
decision of the case”. Section 311 contains a power upon
rt
the court in broad terms. The statutory provision must be
read purposively to achieve the intent of the statute to aid
in the discovery of truth.
32. The first part of the statutory provision, which uses the
expression “may”, postulates that the power can be
exercised at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other
proceeding. The latter part of the provision mandates the
recall of a witness by the court as it uses the expression
“shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any
such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to
the just decision of the case”. Essentially, the evidence of
the person who is to be examined, coupled with the need
for a just decision of the case, constitutes the touchstone
that must guide the decision of the court. The first part of
the statutory provision is discretionary, while the latter
part is obligatory.
33. A Two-Judge Bench of this Court in Mohanlal Shamji
Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271: 1991 SCC (Cri)
595, while dealing with pari materia provisions of Section
540 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1898, observed:
(SCC p. 279, para 16)
“16. The second part of Section 540, as pointed out
albeit imposes upon the court an obligation of
summoning or recalling and re-examining any::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:6749witness, and the only condition prescribed is that the
evidence sought to be obtained must be essential to
the just decision of the case. When any party to the.
proceedings points out the desirability of some
evidence being taken, then the court has to exercise
its power under this provision — either discretionary
or mandatory — depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case, having in view that the
most paramount principle underlying this provision
is to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant
of
facts in order to meet the requirements of justice.”
34. S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. speaking for the two-Judge
Bench, noted that the power is couched in the widest
possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with
rt
regard to the stage at which it can be exercised or the
manner of its exercise. It is only circumscribed by the
principle that the “evidence to be obtained should appear
to the court essential to a just decision of the case by getting
at the truth by all lawful means. In that context, the Court
observed: (Mohanlal Shamji Soni case [Mohanlal Shamji
Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271: 1991 SCC (Cri)
595], SCC p. 280, para 18)
“18. … Therefore, it should be borne in mind that the
aid of the section should be invoked only with the
object of discovering relevant facts or obtaining
proper proof of such facts for a just decision of the
case, and it must be used judicially and not
capriciously or arbitrarily because any improper or
capricious exercise of the power may lead to
undesirable results. Further it is incumbent that due
care should be taken by the court while exercising
the power under this section and it should not be
used for filling up the lacuna left by the prosecution
or by the defence or to the disadvantage of the
accused or to cause serious prejudice to the defence
of the accused or to give an unfair advantage to the
rival side and further the additional evidence should
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
13
2026:HHC:6749
not be received as a disguise for a retrial or to change
the nature of the case against either of the parties.”
35. Summing up the position as it obtained from various
.
decisions of this Court, namely, Rameshwar Dayal v. State of
U.P., (1978) 2 SCC 518: 1978 SCC (Cri) 311, State of W.B. v.
Tulsidas Mundhra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 413: 1963 Supp (1)
SCR 1, Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra, 1967
SCC OnLine SC 19 : (1967) 3 SCR 415: AIR 1968 SC 178, Masalti
v. State of U.P., 1964 SCC OnLine SC 30 : (1964) 8 SCR 133: AIR
1965 SC 202, Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of W.B., 1965 SCC
of
OnLine SC 122 : (1966) 1 SCR 178: AIR 1965 SC 1887 and Ratilal
Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 1 SCC 523: 1971
SCC (Cri) 231], the Court held : (Mohanlal Shamji Soni v.
Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271: 1991 SCC (Cri) 595],
rt
SCC p. 283, para 27)
“27. The principle of law that emerges from the
views expressed by this Court in the above decisions
is that the criminal court has ample power to
summon any person as a witness or recall and re-
examine any such person even if the evidence on
both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court
must obviously be dictated by exigency of the
situation, and fair play and good sense appear to be
the only safe guides and that only the requirements
of justice command the examination of any person
which would depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case.”
36. The power of the court is not constrained by the closure
of evidence. Therefore, it is amply clear from the above
discussion that the broad powers under Section 311 are to
be governed by the requirement of justice. The power must
be exercised wherever the court finds that any evidence is
essential for the just decision of the case. The statutory
provision goes to emphasise that the court is not a hapless
bystander in the derailment of justice. Quite to the
contrary, the court has a vital role to discharge in ensuring
that the cause of discovering truth as an aid in the
realisation of justice is manifest.
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:6749
13. It was further held that filling up the loopholes is a
subsidiary factor, and the Court should be concerned with the
.
essentiality of the evidence. It was observed at page 662: –
43. In the decision in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of
Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8, which was
more recently reiterated in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v.
Computer Joint India Ltd., (2008) 11 SCC 108 : (2009) 2 SCC
of
(Cri) 455], the Court specifically dealt with this objection
and observed that the resultant filling of loopholes on
account of allowing an application under Section 311 is
merely a subsidiary factor and the court’s determination of
rt
the application should only be based on the test of the
essentiality of the evidence. It noted that: [Zahira
Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374:
(2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8], SCC p. 393, para 28]
28. … The court is not empowered under the
provisions of the Code to compel either theprosecution or the defence to examine any particular
witness or witnesses on their side. This must be left
to the parties. But in weighing the evidence, thecourt can take note of the fact that the best available
evidence has not been given, and can draw anadverse inference. The court will often have to
depend on intercepted allegations made by theparties, or on an inconclusive inference from facts
elicited in the evidence. In such cases, the court has
to act under the second part of the section.
Sometimes, the examination of witnesses as directed by
the court may result in what is thought to be “filling of
loopholes”. That is purely a subsidiary factor and cannot
be taken into account. Whether the new evidence is
essential or not must, of course, depend on the facts
of each case, and has to be determined by the
Presiding Judge.” (emphasis supplied)
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
15
2026:HHC:6749
44. The right of the accused to a fair trial is constitutionally
protected under Article 21. However, in Mina Lalita Baruwa
v. State of Orissa, (2013) 16 SCC 173 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 218,
.
while reiterating Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6
SCC 110: 1999 SCC (Cri) 1062, the Court observed that it is
the duty of the criminal court to allow the prosecution to
correct an error in interest of justice. In Rajendra Prasad v.
Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6 SCC 110: 1999 SCC (Cri) 1062, the Court
had held that: (Rajendra Prasad case [Rajendra Prasad v.
Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6 SCC 110: 1999 SCC (Cri) 1062], SCC p.
of
113, para 8)
“8. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as
the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the
matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it
rt
should normally go to the accused in the trial of the
case, but an oversight in the management of the
prosecution cannot be treated as an irreparable
lacuna. No party in a trial can be foreclosed from
correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or
a relevant material was not brought on record due to
any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in
permitting such mistakes to be rectified. After all, the
function of the criminal court is administration of
criminal justice and not to count errors committed
by the parties or to find out and declare who among
the parties performed better.” (emphasis supplied)
45. In the present case, the importance of the decoding
registers was raised in the examination of PW 41.
Accordingly, the decoding registers merely being
additional documents required to be able to appreciate the
existing evidence in the form of the call details, which are
already on record but use codes to signify the location of
the accused, a crucial detail, which can be decoded only
through the decoding registers, the right of the accused to
a fair trial is not prejudiced. The production of the
decoding registers fits into the requirement of being
relevant material which was not brought on record due to
inadvertence.
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
16
2026:HHC:6749
46. Finally, we also briefly deal with the objection of the
respondents regarding the stage at which the application
under Section 311 was filed. The respondents have placed
.
reliance on Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019) 14 SCC
328 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 839, a two-Judge Bench decision of
this Court, to argue that the application should not be
allowed as it has been made at a belated stage. The Court in
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019) 14 SCC 328: (2019) 4
SCC (Cri) 839 observed: (SCC p. 331, paras 11-12)
“11. It is well settled that the power conferred under
of
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.
rt
The court has wide power under this Section to even
recall witnesses for re-examination or further
examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but
the same has to be exercised after taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of each
case. The power under this provision shall not be
exercised if the court is of the view that the
application has been filed as an abuse of the process
of law.
12. Where the prosecution evidence has been closed
long back, and the reasons for non-examination of
the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the
summoning of the witness at a belated stage would
cause great prejudice to the accused and should not
be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage
the filing of successive applications for recall of a
witness under this provision.”
47. In the present appeal, the argument that the
application was filed after the closure of the evidence of the
prosecution is manifestly erroneous. As already noted
above, the closure of the evidence of the prosecution took
place after the application for the production of the
decoding register and for the summoning of the witness
under Section 311 was dismissed. Though the dismissal of
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
17
2026:HHC:6749
the application and the closure of the prosecution evidence
both took place on 13-11-2021, the application by the
prosecution had been filed on 15-3-2021, nearly eight
.
months earlier. As a matter of fact, another witness for the
prosecution, Rajesh Kumar Singh, was also released after
examination and cross-examination on the same day as
recorded in the order dated 13-11-2021 of the trial court.
48. The court is vested with a broad and wholesome power,
in terms of Section 311 CrPC, to summon and examine or
recall and re-examine any material witness at any stage,
of
and the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute
bar. This Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158: 2004 SCC (Cri) 999 while dealing
with the prayers for adducing additional evidence under
rt
Section 391CrPC at the appellate stage, along with a prayer
for examination of witnesses under Section 311CrPC
explained the role of the court, in the following terms: (SCC
pp. 188-89, para 43)
“43. The courts have to take a participatory role in a
trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to
record whatever is being stated by the witnesses.
Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the
Evidence Act confer vast and wide powers on
presiding officers of the court to elicit all necessary
materials by playing an active role in the evidence-
collecting process. They have to monitor the
proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that
something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily
brought into the record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss
in some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively
so that the ultimate objective, i.e. truth, is arrived at.
This becomes more necessary where the court has
reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the
prosecutor is not acting in the requisite manner. The
court cannot afford to be wishful or pretend to be
blissfully ignorant or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or
dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency.
The prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
18
2026:HHC:6749
like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair
judicial system, and courts cannot also play into the
hands of such a prosecuting agency, showing
.
indifference or adopting an attitude of total
aloofness.” (emphasis supplied)
49. Further, in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of
Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8, the Court
reiterated the extent of powers under Section 311 and held
that: (SCC p. 392, para 27)
“27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is
of
that there may not be failure of justice on account of
mistake of either party in bringing the valuable
evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the
rt
statements of the witnesses examined from either
side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential
to the just decision of the case. The section is not
limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will
not be an improper 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 a 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, 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.” (emphasis supplied)
50. The Court while reiterating the principle enunciated in
Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC
271: 1991 SCC (Cri) 595 stressed upon the wide ambit of
Section 311 which allows the power to be exercised at any
stage and held that : (Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
19
2026:HHC:6749
Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158: 2004 SCC (Cri) 999], SCC p. 189,
para 44)
“44. The power of the court under Section 165 of the
.
Evidence Act is, in a way, complementary to its
power under Section 311 of the Code. The section
consists of two parts, i.e., (i) giving a discretion to
the court to examine the witness at any stage, and
(ii) the mandatory portion which compels the court
to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be
essential to the just decision of the court. Though the
of
discretion given to the court is very wide, the very
width requires a corresponding caution. In Mohanlal
Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271:
1991 SCC (Cri) 595 this Court has observed, while
rt
considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that
the very usage of the words such as, “any court”, “atany stage”, or “any enquiry or trial or other
proceedings”, “any person” and “any such person”
clearly spells out that the section has expressed in
the widest-possible terms and do not limit thediscretion of the court in any way. However, as noted
above, the very width requires a corresponding
caution that the discretionary powers should beinvoked as the exigencies of justice require and
exercised judicially with circumspection andconsistently with the provisions of the Code. The
second part of the section does not allow any discretionbut obligates and binds the court to take necessary steps
if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just
decision of the case, “essential” to an active and alert
mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or
abdicate. The object of the section is to enable the court
to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the
prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some
evidence which is necessary for a just and proper
disposal of the case. The power is exercised, and the
evidence is examined, neither to help the
prosecution nor the defence, if the court feels that::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
20
2026:HHC:6749there is a necessity to act in terms of Section 311, but
only to subserve the cause of justice and public
interest. It is done with an object of getting the.
evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the
truth.” (emphasis supplied)
51. While reiterating the decisions of this Court in Karnel
Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518: 1995 SCC (Cri) 977,Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1999) 2 SCC 126: 1999 SCC
(Cri) 104, Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC
517: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1085 and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh,of
(2003) 2 SCC 518: 2003 SCC (Cri) 641 this Court held that the
court may interfere even at the stage of appeal : (Zahira
Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158:
2004 SCC (Cri) 999], SCC p. 196, para 64)
rt
“64. It is no doubt true that the accused persons have
been acquitted by the trial court and the acquittal hasbeen upheld, but if the acquittal is unmerited and
based on tainted evidence, tailored investigation,
unprincipled prosecutor and perfunctory trial andevidence of threatened/terrorised witnesses, it is no
acquittal in the eye of the law and no sanctity or
credibility can be attached and given to the so-calledfindings. It seems to be nothing but a travesty of
truth, fraud on the legal process and the resultantdecisions of courts — coram non judis and non est.
There is, therefore, every justification to call for
interference in these appeals.”
14. A similar view was taken in K.P. Tamilmaran Vs. State
and others 2025 INSC 576 wherein it was observed: –
47. Before moving further, we consider it necessary to deal
with the law relating to section 311 CrPC under which PW-
49 was summoned as a witness. Section 311 CrPC reads as
follows:
“311. Power to summon a material witness or examine
a person present.– Any Court may, at any stage of any::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
21
2026:HHC:6749inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code,
summon any person as a witness, or examine any
person in attendance, though not summoned as a.
witness, or recall and re-examine any person already
examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or
recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence
appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the
case.”
This Section 311 of the CrPC provides wide powers to a
Criminal Court, to do the following:
of
I. Summon any person as a witness, or
ii. Examine any person present in court, though not
rtsummoned as a witness, or
iii. Recall and re-examine any person already examined.
The above powers can be exercised ‘at any stage of any
inquiry, trial or other proceeding’ under the CrPC. The
provision can be divided into two parts. The word ‘may’ is
used in the first part of the section, which grants the Courtthe discretion to summon a witness. In contrast, the
second part of the Section uses the word ‘shall’, which
casts a duty on the Court to summon and examine or recallor re-examine any such person as a witness when it
appears to the Court that it is essential to do so for a justdecision in the case. In other words, the second part is
mandatory, and Courts are obligated to exercise their
powers under Section 311 CrPC when the evidence of anyperson is essential for a just decision of the case. (See:
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra, 1967 SCC
OnLine SC 19)
48. As is clear from the language of the provision itself,
there is a wide discretion with the Courts under Section 311
CrPC. These powers can be exercised suo motu or on an
application moved by either side. After all, the object is that
the Court must not be deprived of the benefit of any
valuable evidence. It is absolutely necessary that the Court
must be apprised of the best evidence available. Thus,
Courts have been given wide powers to decide on their own::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
22
2026:HHC:6749if a witness is required to be called or recalled for
examination or re-examination. This power under Section
311 CrPC can be invoked at any stage of the trial, even after.
the closing of the evidence. Section 311 CrPC can also be
read along with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, as the
powers of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act
are complementary to Section 311 of CrPC. As discussed
above, powers under Section 311 CrPC can either be
exercised on an application moved by either side to the
case or suo moto by the Court. In case a person is not listed
of
as a witness in the charge-sheet but later the prosecution
desires to bring that person as an additional prosecution
witness, then the prosecution can move an application to
bring this person as a prosecution witness. It is then for the
rt
Court to decide whether such a person is required as a
witness or not. If the Court finds that such a person should
have been examined as a prosecution witness and he/she
was omitted from the list of witnesses due to some
oversight, mistake or for any other reason, the Court may
allow the application and such a person can be examined as
a prosecution witness. Thereafter, the normal course of
examination-in-chief, cross-examination, etc., would
follow as per the procedure. On the other hand, when the
Court calls a person as a Court witness, there are some
restrictions regarding the cross-examination of such a
witness.
15. The reply filed before the learned Trial Court
mentioned that the accused had denied that he was a dealer of
M/s Sonalika International, or that he had opened an account at
State Bank of Patiala, Ghumarwin. The complaint was filed before
the learned Trial Court on the premise that the accused was a
dealer of M/s Sonalika International. He had taken a loan and
issued a cheque drawn on the State Bank of Patiala, Ghumarwin,
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
23
2026:HHC:6749
to discharge his legal liability. Therefore, the Court was required
to determine whether the accused had an account with the State
.
Bank of Patiala, Ghumarwin, and whether he had issued a cheque
as a dealer of Sonalika tractors. Therefore, the documents sought
to be proved on record were relevant, and the learned Trial Court
had rightly allowed the application.
of
16. In Swapan Kumar Chatterjee (supra), the Hon’ble
rt
Supreme Court held that when the evidence was closed long back,
the exercise of discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was not
justified. In the present case, the statement of the accused was
recorded on 02.09.2024. The matter was listed for defence
witnesses; therefore, it cannot be said that evidence had been
closed long ago. Further, the applicant was not a party in the
police challan, and it could have no knowledge of the material
collected by the parties; hence, the application could not have
been dismissed on the ground of delay, and the cited judgment
does not apply to the present case.
17. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the order
passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the present application
fails and is hereby dismissed.
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
24
2026:HHC:6749
18. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the
disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on
.
the case’s merits.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
12th March, 2026
(Nikita)
of
rt
::: Downloaded on – 12/03/2026 20:37:46 :::CIS
