LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/swapan-kumar-chatterjee-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-20190104/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
4 January 2019
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019
Result
Allowed
Bench
A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer
Citation
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 713 : 2019 INSC 11
Supreme Court Reports [2019] 3 S.C.R. 713 : 2019 INSC 11
Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s. 311 – Power under – Scope of – Held: The power should be exercised with great caution and circumspection and should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice – In the facts of the present case, the application for summoning the witness, ought to have been rejected.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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 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. [Para 12][716-F-H]

2. In the instant case, the case was registered in the year 1983. 29 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The application of the prosecution to examine the handwriting expert was allowed in the year 2004. However, prosecution has failed to call him in court for his examination. Thereafter, multiple applications have been filed to summon him and all of them have been allowed. However, the prosecution has failed to procure his attendance in the court. [Para 14][717-B-C]

3. Despite the orders dated 28.07.2011 and 15.09.2014 passed by the High Court in criminal revision applications, whereby prosecution was given last opportunity to procure attendance of the witness and it was observed that since the trial is pending for a long time, steps must be taken by the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, the trial court has allowed the application filed by the prosecution for summoning the witness, which order has been confirmed by the High Court. The High Court ought to have rejected the application of the prosecution for summoning the witness. [Paras 15 and 16][717D-F]

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant- Swapan Kumar Chatterjee has challenged the order dated 04.05.2017 in CRR No. 440/2015 passed by the High Court at Calcutta, whereby the High Court confirmed the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the Trial Court permitting the examination of one witness Mr. H.S. Tuteja. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under: 4. A complaint was lodged by one Mr. P.N. Khanna before the Superintendant of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’), Economic Offences Wing,
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →