2023INSC786 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023

(@ OUT OF SLP(Crl.) No.1258/2022 )

SATBIR SINGH Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2.Leave granted.

3.The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

14.12.2021 in CRMM No.40058/2021 (hereinafter referred to as

the “Impugned Order”) passed by the High Court of Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “High

Court”), by which the prayer for recall of the appellant as a

witness in the trial before the Court below for further

examination has been rejected.

4.The brief facts relating to the case are that the

appellant made a complaint against the accused that they,

being ex-employees of his company, had stolen company data and

used such data to manufacture equipment, which was being

manufactured by the appellant’s company. During trial, before

the Report from the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory,

2

Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “CFSL”) could come, the

evidence of the appellant was recorded. However, when the CFSL

expert who had prepared the Report was examined on 20.08.2021

by the Court, though he described the data which was found on

the hard disk(s) of the accused, but there was no reference as

to whether they were comparable to/same in regard to what was

allegedly stolen from the appellant’s company. Thus, under the

circumstances, the appellant was constrained to apply for his

recall as a witness, which was done within five days of the

evidence of the CFSL expert being recorded i.e., on

25.08.2021. The same having been rejected, by the Trial Court

and the High Court, the matter is before this Court.

5.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there

was no previous occasion for him during the course of the

trial to put any question with regard to comparison of data as

the CFSL expert had clearly taken a stand that he had not

submitted any report with regard to the comparison of the two

sets of data. It was submitted that the comparison of the two

sets of data was the main essence of the complaint and without

the same, the trial itself would be reduced to a farce.

6.He further submitted that the courts erred in reckoning

the delay counting it from the date of first lodging of the

complaint though the same should have been considered from the

date the cause of action arose i.e., on 20.08.2021, and the

3

application was filed on 25.08.2021.

7.Learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 9 submitted that

the appellant is only indulging in dilatory tactics as he has

every opportunity to make submissions, as he deems fit, during

arguments which are yet to be concluded. Learned counsel

further contented that the appellant cannot be, and should not

be allowed to, fill up the lacunae left in the earlier round,

at the current stage.

8. Learned counsel for the State joined the proceedings via

video-conferencing.

9.Section 311

1

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 enable the court to find out the

truth and render a just decision, the salutary provi -

sions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court

by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage

of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any

person as witness or examine any person in attendance

though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-

1

311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.—Any Court may, at any

stage of any inquiry, 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.

4

examine any person already examined who are expected

to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute.

The object of the provision as a whole is to do

justice not only from the point of view of the accused

and the prosecution but also from the point of view of

an orderly society. This power is to be exercised only

for strong and valid reasons and it should be exer -

cised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a

matter of course and the discretion given to the court

has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of

justice. Therefore, the reasons for exercising this

power should be spelt out in the order.

18. In Vijay Kumar v.State of U.P.[Vijay Kumar

v.State of U.P., (2011) 8 SCC 136 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)

371 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 240], this Court while ex -

plaining scope and ambit of Section 311 has held as

under: (SCC p. 141, para 17)

“17.Though Section 311 confers vast discretion

upon the court and is expressed in the widest

possible terms, the discretionary power under

the said section can be invoked only for the

ends of justice. Discretionary power should be

exercised consistently with the provisions of

[CrPC] and the principles of criminal law. The

discretionary power conferred under Section 311

has to be exercised judicially for reasons

stated by the court and not arbitrarily or ca -

priciously.”

19.In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gu -

jarat [Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v.State of Gu -

jarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8] ,

this Court has considered the concept underlying un -

der Section 311 as under: (SCC p. 392, para 27)

“27.The object underlying Section 311 of the

Code is that there may not be failure of justice

on account of mistake of either party in bring -

ing the valuable evidence on record or leaving

ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses ex -

amined 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

5

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 sum -

mons to any witness at any stage of such pro -

ceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the

significant expression that occurs is “at any

stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceed -

ing 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 wit -

nesses, the discretion conferred is to be exer -

cised judiciously, as the wider the power the

greater is the necessity for application of ju -

dicial 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” is not

enough unless there are tangible reasons to

show how the fair trial suffered without re -

call. Recall is not a matter of course and the

discretion given to the court has to be exer -

cised judiciously to prevent failure of justice

and not arbitrarily. While the party is even

permitted to correct its bona fide error and

may be entitled to further opportunity even

when such opportunity may be sought without any

fault on the part of the opposite party, plea

for recall for advancing justice has to be bona

fide and has to be balanced carefully with the

other relevant considerations including un -

called for hardship to the witnesses and un -

called for delay in the trial. Having regard to

these considerations, there is no ground to

justify the recall of witnesses already ex -

amined.”

21. The delay in filing the application is one of

the important factors which has to be explained in

the application. In Umar Mohammad v. State of Ra -

jasthan [Umar Mohammad v.State of Rajasthan, (2007)

6

14 SCC 711 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 244] , this Court has

held as under: (SCC p. 719, para 38)

“38. Before parting, however, we may notice

that a contention has been raised by the

learned counsel for the appellant that PW 1 who

was examined in Court on 5-7-1994 purported to

have filed an application on 1-5-1995 stating

that five accused persons named therein were

innocent. An application filed by him purported

to be under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure was rejected by the learned trial

Judge by order dated 13-5-1995. A revision pe -

tition was filed thereagainst and the High

Court also rejected the said contention. It is

not a case where stricto sensu the provisions

of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Proced -

ure could have been invoked. The very fact that

such an application was got filed by PW 1 nine

months after his deposition is itself a pointer

to the fact that he had been won over. It is

absurd to contend that he, after a period of

four years and that too after his examination-

in-chief and cross-examination was complete,

would file an application on his own will and

volition. The said application was, therefore,

rightly dismissed.”’

10. In Manju Devi v State of Rajasthan , (2019) 6 SCC 203, this

Court emphasized that a discretionary power like Section 311,

CrPC is to enable the Court to keep the record straight and to

clear any ambiguity regarding 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 per -

missive gives purely discretionary authority to the

criminal court and enables it at any stage of in -

quiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to

act in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon

7

any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any per -

son 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, im -

poses 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 un -

der Section 311 should be invoked by the court only

to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exer -

cised only for strong and valid reasons and it should

be exercised with great caution and circumspection.

The court has vide power under this section to even

recall witnesses for re-examination or further exam -

ination, necessary in the interest of justice, but

the same has to be exercised after taking into con -

sideration 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 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. ’

11. In Harendra Rai v State of Bihar , 2023 SCC OnLine SC

1023, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court was of the opinion that

Section 311, CrPC should be invoked when ‘ … it is essential

for the just decision of the case .’

12. Having considered the matter and surveyed the law supra,

the Court finds that a case for interference has been made

out. Under the peculiar facts of the present case, the request

for recall of the appellant under Section 311, CrPC was

8

justified, as at the relevant point of time in his initial

deposition, there was no occasion for him to bring the

relevant facts relating to similarity of data before the

Court, which arose after the CFSL expert was examined.

13.Further, we find that if opportunity is given for re-

examination, respondents no.2 to 9 will not be prejudiced as

they will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the

appellant. We have noted their apprehension apropos delay and

issued appropriate direction infra.

14.In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The orders

of the Courts below are set aside. The application of the

appellant under Section 311, CrPC for his recall to be further

examined as a witness stands allowed. The same be done on a

date to be fixed by the Trial Court, within six weeks from

today. The trial will be brought to conclusion within 9 months

from the date of receipt of this judgment. Pending

applications are disposed of.

…………………………………………………J.

[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

…………………………………………………J.

[S.V.N. BHATTI]

NEW DELHI

AUGUST 29, 2023