Mere Change Of Counsel Cannot Be A Ground To Recall Witness, Application Must Contain Details As to Why Witness Is Required To Be Recalled: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall the witness and an application must contain details as to why the witness is required to be recalled.
The Court however said that the recalling of witnesses should not be permitted at the fag end of the trial.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC against the order passed by the Trial Court.
The bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “Mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall the witness. The application must contain details as to why the witness is required to be recalled.”
Advocate Karunashankar KN appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Sridhar Prabhu appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The respondent, a Toll Road Maintenance and Collection Private Company, filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 138 of the Act. The Petitioners filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC to recall PW for further cross-examination, which was rejected. Hence, the present Petition was filed before the High Court.
The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and quoted, “….The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive and speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated….The power under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right.”
The Court further mentioned another Supreme Court decision in Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat and quoted, “In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions 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-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 exercised 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.”
Accordingly, the Court rejected the Criminal Petition.
Cause Title: M/s Steel Rocks In v. M/s Banglore Elevated Tollway Pvt. Ltd.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Karunashankar KN and Shankarappa S
Respondent: Advocates Sridhar Prabhu