Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s.311 – Ambit of – FIR under PC Act registered in 2010 against respondent-Chief Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Limited (TANGEDCO) and other co-accused (since deceased) – Sanction to prosecute accorded – Final report filed in July 2011 – Prosecution evidence closed in October 2017 – Applications filed u/s.311 in 2019 for recalling PW-1(Chairman of TANGEDCO) and PW-11 (Deputy Superintendent of Police) – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Having due regard to the nature and ambit of s.311, the applications filed by the prosecution ought to have been allowed – True test is whether it appears to the Court that the evidence of such person sought to be recalled is essential to the just decision of the case – Prosecution sought to produce a copy of the relevant document pertaining to the approval granted by the Board of TANGEDCO – To have it marked as an exhibit, PWs 1 and 11 were sought to be recalled – Document was crucial for the decision of the case since the respondent had taken a defense that this document had been signed by the Chairman of TANGEDCO without the Board’s approval – Delay in filing the applications explained by prosecution – Impugned judgment set aside – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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 the CrPC, 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”. The true test, therefore, is whether it appears to the Court that the evidence of such person who is sought to be recalled is essential to the just decision of the case. In the present case, the prosecution has sought to produce a copy of the relevant document pertaining to the approval granted by the Board of TANGEDCO on the record and to have it marked as an exhibit in the evidence, for which purpose PWs 1 and 11 were sought to be recalled. In its applications, the prosecution noted that these witnesses were required to mark the relevant document, which was crucial for the decision of the case since the respondent had taken a defense that this document had been signed by the Chairman of TANGEDCO without the Board’s approval. In explaining the delay in filing the applications, the prosecution noted that it was due to the transfer of Special Public Prosecutor who was conducting the case. The rejection of the applications for recall under Section 311 was not in order. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The applications filed by the prosecution for recall of PWs 1 and 11 shall accordingly stand allowed. [Paras 13, 15 and 16][534-B-D; 536-D-E; 537-E-F]
Manju Devi v State of Rajasthan (2019) 6 SCC 203 : [2019] 6 SCR 68 – relied on.
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.
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.