[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sandhyarani Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Another on 25 June, 2025
2025:CHC-AS:1123
.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 846 of 2022
With
CRAN 7/2023
Sandhyarani Das
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satadru Lahiri. Adv.
Mr. Safdar Azam, Adv.
Mr. Syed Wasim Faruque, Adv.
Mr. Jyotirmoy Talukder, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, Adv.
Mr. Amitava Karmakar, Adv.
For the State : Md. Anwar Hossain, Adv.
Heard on : 11.04.2025
Judgment on : 25.06.2025
2025:CHC-AS:1123
2
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1. Petitioner being the complainant has filed this Criminal
Revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'CrPC') challenging the
correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 18th
February, 2022 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court,
Contai, Purba Medinipur in connection with G.R. Case No. 83 of 2006
arising out of Contai Police Station Case No. 28/06 dated 15.02.2006
under Sections 323/324/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
whereby the Learned Magistrate allowed the prayer of the
accused/opposite party no. 2 to recall the prosecution witnesses
being P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 at a belated stage i.e., after 7 to 14 years for
only re-examination to contradict and confront the witnesses by the
accused persons.
2. Originally, a complaint was lodged by the father of the
present petitioner, namely, Asim Kumar Das (since deceased) with an
allegation, inter alia, that on 8th February, 2006, while he was on his
way to visit a nearby doctor, the accused/opposite party no. 2 abused
him using filthy languages and threatened him with dire
consequences on the way. Again, on 14th February, 2006 at about
6:30 hour, while the complainant went to arrange for masons, the
opposite party no. 2 and another accused (since deceased) assaulted
2025:CHC-AS:1123
3
him with Lathi, Katan etc. and attempted to kill him due to previous
grudge. However, local people rescued the complainant and he was
treated in Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital and, thereafter, at NRS
Medical Collage and Hospital.
3. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR was registered being
Contai Police Station Case No. 28/06 dated 15.02.2006 under
Sections 323/506/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
caused investigation.
4. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 52/06 dated 31st
March, 2006 against the accused/opposite party no. 2 and another
individual for commission of offence punishable under Sections
323/324/506/34 of the IPC. During investigation, the Investigating
Officer has recorded the statement of the witnesses under Sections
161 of the CrPC and also collected the injury report. On the basis of
charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, the Learned Trial
Court framed charge against the accused/opposite party no. 2 and
another for commission of offence punishable under Sections
323/324/506/34 of the IPC and trial commenced.
5. P.W. 1 was examined on 6th December, 2008 and cross-
examined at length by all accused persons. P.W. 2 was examined in
2025:CHC-AS:1123
4
full and discharged on 18th June, 2009. P.W. 3 was examined and
discharged on 16th August, 2010. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were examined and
discharged on 16th May, 2014. Finally, several dates were fixed
between 6th May, 2015 to 14th June, 2019 for adducing evidence of
C.S.W. 10 and C.S.W. 11, who were the treating doctors of the
complainant. However, despite multiple opportunities, the
prosecution failed to ensure their presence on the dates fixed by the
Learned Trial Court. Ultimately, on 14th June, 2019, the Learned
Trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution as several
opportunities were already given to the prosecution and fixed
19.06.2019 for examination of the accused under Section 313 of
CrPC. Though, two witnesses i.e. C.S.Ws. 10 and 11 were vital
witnesses for proper and effective adjudication of the case.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the approach of the
Learned Trial Court for closing the evidence of vital witnesses, the
complainant filed a Revisional application being CRR No. 1691 of
2019 before this Hon'ble High Court. Upon hearing the parties on
27.09.2021, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the
aforesaid impugned order dated 14.06.2019 and directed the Learned
Trial Court to fix a date for recording of evidence of the remaining
prosecution witnesses by November 2021 and, thereafter, to examine
the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC and permit him to adduce
2025:CHC-AS:1123
5
defence witnesses if he wants and to complete the entire process of
criminal prosecution by 15th February, 2022 considering the long
pendency of the case. Several dates were fixed by the Learned Trial
Court till 15.02.2022 for adducing the evidence of C.S.Ws. 10 to 13
but they failed to appear before the Learned Trial Court.
7. In the meantime, accused/opposite party no. 2 filed an
application under Section 311 of the CrPC to recall the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3
and 5 on 15.02.2022 on the ground that certain questions are left to
put to them which needed to be contradicted or confronted with their
earlier evidence.
8. The Learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties,
casually and mechanically allowed the application for recalling of the
P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and fixed dates on 23rd March, 2022, 25th March,
2022 and 28th March, 2022 for re-examination of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5
respectively simply citing reason that it is necessary to come to a just
decision after expiry of 7 to 14 years of their examination and cross
examination in full. Hence, this application.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
vehemently argued and submitted on two-fold grounds. Firstly, the
Learned Trial Court ignored to follow the mandatory order passed by
2025:CHC-AS:1123
6
the Hon'ble Co-Ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble High Court on
27.09.2021 in Revisional application, by fixing a particular period for
disposal of the case.
10. Secondly, the Learned Trial Court undermined and
frustrated the order passed by allowing the recall of prosecution
witnesses at a belated stage after expiry of 7 to 14 years of their
examinations and cross-examinations without any valid or sufficient
reason. Accused/opposite party no. 2 did not even disclose the
particular reason for further cross-examination of the witnesses on
recall.
11. The Learned Trial Court, without properly assessing the
reason or properly explaining on behalf of the accused/opposite party
no. 2, allowed the application, completely mis-construed the direction
issued by the Hon'ble Co-Ordinate Bench and also avoided settled
principle of law for recalling of the witnesses and ignored nefarious
conduct of the accused/opposite party only to frustrate and to make
delay the trial which is not at all permissible in law. The trial started
in the year 2006 and, the frivolous application was filed in the year
2022 by the opposite party no. 2 to re-examine the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and
5 only on the ground that few questions were left and that is required
to cross-examine.
2025:CHC-AS:1123
7
12. Learned counsel further submitted that by catena of
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various
High Courts, time and again it has been reiterated that the power
under Section 311 of the CrPC can be invoked very sparingly, only in
exceptional circumstances to meet the ends of justice. However, the
Learned Trial Court has recorded his satisfaction in a perfunctory
manner, by citing for reaching a just decision and allowed the recall
application casually without fulfilling the conditions stipulated under
Section 311 of the CrPC.
13. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgments to
support of his contention that the recalling application cannot be
allowed mechanically or casually without sufficient reason or
grounds. No specific reason was mentioned in the application filed by
the accused/opposite party no. 2. Despite the said facts, the Learned
Trial Court allowed the said application for recalling of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3
and 5 only to re-examine at the belated stage i.e., after 7 to 14 years
of their full examination, cross-examination and discharge for
contradiction and confrontation. Those judgments are as under: -
2025:CHC-AS:1123
8
i. Ratanlal Vs. Prahlad Jat and Others1 particularly
paragraph nos. 16 to 24;
ii. T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar Vs. Tubati Srivalli and
Others2 particularly paragraph nos. 6 to 15;
iii. Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.3
particularly paragraph nos. 8, 13, 14, 17, 23 and 24;
iv. State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and
Anr.4 particularly paragraph nos. 8, 27 and 29.
14. In Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat and Others, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in paragraph nos. 16 to 24 as under: -
"16. That brings us to the next question as to whether
the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of
the Sessions Judge and allowing the application filed by
PWs 4 and 5 for their re-examination. For ready
reference Section 311 CrPC is as under:
"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
1
(2017) 9 SCC 340;
2
(2021) 15 SCC 395;
3
(2013) 14 SCC 461;
4
(2016) 2 SCC 402;
2025:CHC-AS:1123
9
evidence appears to it to be essential to the
just decision of the case."
17. 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.
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 explaining
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
2025:CHC-AS:1123
10
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 capriciously."
19. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of
Gujarat [Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of
Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8], this
Court has considered the concept underlying under
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 bringing the valuable evidence on record
or leaving ambiguity in the 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 summons to any
witness at any stage of such proceedings,
trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the
2025:CHC-AS:1123
11
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 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."
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 recall. Recall is not a matter of
course and the discretion given to the
court has to be exercised 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 uncalled for
hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for
delay in the trial. Having regard to these
2025:CHC-AS:1123
12
considerations, there is no ground to justify
the recall of witnesses already examined."
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
Rajasthan [Umar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan,
(2007) 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
petition was filed there against 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 Procedure 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."
2025:CHC-AS:1123
13
22. Coming to the facts of the present case, PWs 4 and
5 were examined between 29-11-2010 and 11-3-2011.
They were cross-examined at length during the said
period. During the police investigation and in their
evidence, they have supported the prosecution story.
The Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that they
were not under any pressure while recording their
evidence. After a passage of 14 months, they have filed
the application for their re-examination on the ground
that the statements made by them earlier were under
pressure. They have not assigned any reasons for the
delay in making application. It is obvious that they had
been won over. We do not find any reasons to allow
such an application. The Sessions Judge, therefore, was
justified in rejecting the application. In our view, the
High Court was not right in setting aside the said order.
23. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is
accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court
in Prahlad Jat v. State of Rajasthan [Prahlad
Jat v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Misc. Petition No.
1679 of 2012, order dated 22-5-2012 (Raj)], dated 22-5-
2012 is hereby set aside. All pending applications also
stand disposed of.
24. We find from the records that after the order of the
High Court, PWs 4 and 5 were re-examined before the
trial court. The trial court is directed to proceed with the
2025:CHC-AS:1123
14
matter without taking into consideration the evidence of
PWs 4 and 5 recorded after the order of the High Court."
15. In T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar v. Tubati Srivalli and Others,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph nos. 6 to 15 as under:
-
"6. Apart from the party/parties responsible for
protracting the proceedings, it is unfortunate that the
State, the trial court as well as the High Court have
also omitted to take note of the time-frame fixed by
this Court. The State represented by the Prosecutor
filed an application in Criminal MP No. 56 of 2020 for
recalling PWs 1 to 4 for further examination and for
the issue of summons to several other persons. This
application was filed on the ground that a
supplementary charge-sheet was filed later.
7. But the trial court dismissed the application filed
by the Prosecutor on 23-1-2020 on the ground that
the supplementary charge-sheet related only to A-4 to
A-6 and that inasmuch as the charges against A-4 to
A-6 have been quashed, the reason for seeking recall
was not convincing. The trial court also recorded that
PWs 1 to 4 were supposed to speak about their
grievances at length even when they were examined
in the first instance and that therefore the petition
2025:CHC-AS:1123
15
filed by the prosecution was only an attempt to delay
the proceedings.
8. As against the well-considered order of the trial
court, the 1st respondent wife moved a petition before
the High Court under Section 482CrPC. This petition
was entertained by the High Court and stay of further
proceedings was granted. The High Court should not
have granted such a stay [Tubati Srivalli v. T.S.K.
Ashwin Kumar, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1513] on 7-2-
2020, in the teeth of the order passed by this Court
on 16-7-2019 [Tubati Srivalli v. State of Telangana,
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1933] for the disposal of the
proceedings within two months.
9. It is relevant to point out that the 1st respondent
wife was PW 1 and she was examined-in-chief on 9-
10-2019 and 15-10-2019 long after the filing of the
supplementary charge-sheet. She was cross-
examined on 18-11-2019, 20-11-2019 and 28-11-
2019. After conclusion of such extensive cross-
examination, the prosecution reported no re-
examination.
10. Similarly, the 1st respondent's mother was
examined as PW 2. Her chief examination took place
on 22-10-2019 and her cross-examination took place
on 9-12-2019. There was no re-examination. The
father of the 1st respondent was examined as PW 3
2025:CHC-AS:1123
16
and the brother of the 1st respondent was examined
as PW 4. These two witnesses were also examined
during the very same period of time, namely, October-
December 2019.
11. It appears that after the recording of evidence of
all prosecution witnesses was over, the trial court
closed the evidence on the side of the prosecution on
8-1-2020 and posted the case for questioning under
Section 313CrPC on 17-1-2020. On 30-1-2020, the
questioning under Section 313 was also over.
12. Therefore, it is surprising that the prosecution
filed an application in Criminal MP No. 56 of 2020 for
recalling PWs 1 to 4, on the basis of the
supplementary charge-sheet. PWs 1 to 4 are not
strangers or third parties. All of them are aggrieved
persons and hence they should have spoken about all
the facts even in the first instance. After having
prevented the 1st petitioner husband from travelling
to USA, by inviting an order on consent before this
Court, neither the parties nor the prosecution should
give any room for suspicion that they are protracting
the proceedings.
13. Our attention was drawn to the certified copies of
the deposition of PWs 1, 2 and 4, where the trial court
has recorded the demeanor of these witnesses. We do
2025:CHC-AS:1123
17
not wish to make any observation regarding the
same, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial.
14. Suffice it to point out that any attempt to
overreach an order of this Court passed by consent
should be discouraged and deprecated. Therefore, the
order of stay [Tubati Srivalli v. T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar,
2020 SCC OnLine TS 1513] granted by the High Court
is liable to be vacated and the trial directed to be
proceeded. The contempt petition, in our considered
view can be closed without going into the rival claims.
15. Accordingly, the special leave petition and the
contempt petition are disposed of to the following
effect:
15.1. The contempt petition is closed without
going into the rival contentions.
15.2. The special leave petition is allowed
and the order of stay of further proceedings
granted [Tubati Srivalli v. T.S.K. Ashwin
Kumar, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1513] by the
High Court in Tubati Srivalli v. T.S.K. Ashwin
Kumar [Tubati Srivalli v. T.S.K. Ashwin
Kumar, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1513] is set
aside.
15.3. The trial court is directed to proceed
further with the trial of the criminal case, from
the stage where it got struck due to the stay
order [Tubati Srivalli v. T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar,
2025:CHC-AS:1123
18
2020 SCC OnLine TS 1513] of the High Court.
The trial court may endeavour to dispose of
the matter within a period of two months."
16. In Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and Another,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph nos. 8, 13, 14, 17, 23
and 24 as under: -
"8. Pursuant to the said issue, it is stated that the
father of the appellant was beaten with bamboo
sticks, injuring him seriously. In connection with the
said incident, Bindeshwar Yadav filed a complaint
before the police on 7-6-2007, leading to the
registration of the FIR on the same date in
Khizersarai Police Station in Case No. 78 of 2007.
Subsequently, the second respondent came forward
with a petition dated 24-8-2007, under Section 311
CrPC and sought for permission for his re-
examination. For the same purpose, the Additional
Public Prosecutor also filed a petition on 5-12-2007, in
the above applications. The trial court passed a
common order on 18-11-2009, dismissing both the
applications and posted the case for evidence of the
investigation officers and the doctors on 18-12-2009.
The second respondent approached the High Court by
filing the present Criminal Misc. Case No. 12454 of
2010, in which the impugned order was passed by
the High Court on 9-12-2010 [Suresh Prasad v. State
2025:CHC-AS:1123
19
of Bihar, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 12454 of 2010,
order dated 9-12-2010 (Pat)].
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and having bestowed our serious
consideration to the issue involved, we find force in
the submission of the counsel for the appellant, as the
same merits acceptance. In order to appreciate the
stand of the appellant it will be worthwhile to refer to
Section 311 CrPC, as well as Section 138 of the
Evidence Act. The same are extracted hereunder:
Section 311, Code of Criminal
Procedure
"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."
***
Section 138, Evidence Act
"138.Order of examinations. --Witnesses
shall be first examined-in-chief then (if the
adverse party so desires) cross-examined,
then (if the party calling him so desires) re-
examined.
2025:CHC-AS:1123
20
The examination and cross-examination
must relate to relevant facts but the cross-
examination need not be confined to the
facts to which the witness testified on his
examination-in-chief.
Direction of re-examination. --The re-
examination shall be directed to the
explanation of matters referred to in cross-
examination; and if new matter is, by
permission of the court, introduced in re-
examination, the adverse party may further
cross-examine upon that matter."
14. A conspicuous reading of Section 311 CrPC would
show that widest of the powers have been invested
with the courts when it comes to the question of
summoning a witness or to recall or re-examine any
witness already examined. A reading of the provision
shows that the expression "any" has been used as a
prefix to "court", "inquiry", "trial", "other proceeding",
"person as a witness", "person in attendance though
not summoned as a witness", and "person already
examined". By using the said expression "any" as a
prefix to the various expressions mentioned above, it
is ultimately stated that all that was required to be
satisfied by the court was only in relation to such
evidence that appears to the court to be essential for
the just decision of the case. Section 138 of the
Evidence Act, prescribed the order of examination of a
witness in the court. The order of re-examination is
also prescribed calling for such a witness so desired
for such re-examination. Therefore, a reading of
2025:CHC-AS:1123
21
Section 311 CrPC and Section 138 Evidence Act,
insofar as it comes to the question of a criminal trial,
the order of re-examination at the desire of any
person under Section 138, will have to necessarily be
in consonance with the prescription contained in
Section 311 CrPC. It is, therefore, imperative that the
invocation of Section 311 CrPC and its application in
a particular case can be ordered by the court, only by
bearing in mind the object and purport of the said
provision, namely, for achieving a just decision of the
case as noted by us earlier. The power vested under
the said provision is made available to any court at
any stage in any inquiry or trial or other proceeding
initiated under the Code for the purpose of
summoning any person as a witness or for examining
any person in attendance, even though not
summoned as witness or to recall or re-examine any
person already examined. Insofar as recalling and re-
examination of any person already examined is
concerned, the court must necessarily consider and
ensure that such recall and re-examination of any
person, appears in the view of the court to be
essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore,
the paramount requirement is just decision and for
that purpose the essentiality of a person to be
recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained. To
put it differently, while such a widest power is
invested with the court, it is needless to state that
exercise of such power should be made judicially and
also with extreme care and caution.
2025:CHC-AS:1123
22
17. From a conspectus consideration of the above
decisions, while dealing with an application under
Section 311 CrPC read along with Section 138 of the
Evidence Act, we feel the following principles will
have to be borne in mind by the courts:
17.1. Whether the court is right in thinking that the
new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence
sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the
court for a just decision of a case?
17.2. 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.
17.3. If evidence of any witness appears to the court
to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the
power of the court to summon and examine or recall
and re-examine any such person.
17.4. The exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC
should be resorted to only with the object of finding
out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts,
which will lead to a just and correct decision of the
case.
2025:CHC-AS:1123
23
17.5. The exercise of the said power cannot be
dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case,
unless the facts and circumstances of the case make
it apparent that the exercise of power by the court
would result in causing serious prejudice to the
accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
17.6. The wide discretionary power should be
exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
17.7. The court must satisfy itself that it was in every
respect essential to examine such a witness or to
recall him for further examination in order to arrive at
a just decision of the case.
17.8. The object of Section 311 CrPC simultaneously
imposes a duty on the court to determine the truth
and to render a just decision.
17.9. The court arrives at the conclusion that
additional evidence is necessary, not because it
would be impossible to pronounce the judgment
without it, but because there would be a failure of
justice without such evidence being considered.
17.10. Exigency of the situation, fair play and good
sense should be the safeguard, while exercising the
discretion. The court should bear in mind that no
party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting
2025:CHC-AS:1123
24
errors and that 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.
17.11. The court should be conscious of the position
that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners
and the court should afford an opportunity to them in
the fairest manner possible. In that parity of
reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the
accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting
the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost
of the accused. The court should bear in mind that
improper or capricious exercise of such a
discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results.
17.12. The additional evidence must not be received
as a disguise or to change the nature of the case
against any of the party.
17.13. The power must be exercised keeping in mind
that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would
be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that
an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party.
17.14. 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
2025:CHC-AS:1123
25
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.
23. We find that the factors noted by the trial court
and the conclusion arrived at by it were all
appropriate and just, while deciding the application
filed under Section 311 CrPC. We do not find any
bona fides in the application of the second
respondent, while seeking the permission of the court
under Section 311 CrPC for his re-examination by
merely alleging that on the earlier occasion he turned
hostile under coercion and threat meted out to him at
the instance of the appellant and other accused. It
was quite apparent that the complaint, which
emanated at the instance of the appellant based on
the subsequent incident, which took place on 30-5-
2007, which resulted in the registration of the FIR in
Khizersarai Police Station Case No. 78 of 2007, seem
to have weighed with the second respondent to come
forward with the present application under Section
311 CrPC, by way of an afterthought. If really there
was a threat to his life at the instance of the appellant
and the other accused, as rightly noted by the court
below, it was not known as to why there was no
immediate reference to such coercion and undue
2025:CHC-AS:1123
26
influence meted out against him at the instance of the
appellant, when he had every opportunity to mention
the same to the learned trial Judge or to the police
officers or to any prosecution agency. Such an
indifferent stance and silence maintained by the
second respondent herein and the categorical
statement made before the court below in his
evidence as appreciated by the court below was in
the proper perspective, while rejecting the application
of the respondents filed under Section 311 CrPC. In
our considered opinion, the trial court, had the
opportunity to observe the demeanour of the second
respondent, while tendering evidence which
persuaded the trial court to reach the said conclusion
and that deserves more credence while examining the
correctness of the said order passed by the trial court.
24. In the light of the above conclusion, applying the
various principles set out above, we are convinced
that the order of the trial court impugned before the
High Court did not call for any interference in any
event behind the back of the appellant herein. The
appeal, therefore, succeeds. The order impugned
dated 9-12-2010, passed in Suresh Prasad v. State of
Bihar [Suresh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Criminal Misc.
Petition No. 12454 of 2010, order dated 9-12-2010
(Pat)] of the High Court is set aside. The order of the
trial court stands restored. The trial court shall
proceed with the trial. The stay granted by this Court
2025:CHC-AS:1123
27
in the order dated 7-3-2011, stands vacated. The trial
court shall proceed with the trial from the stage it was
left and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably
within three months from the date of receipt of the
copy of this order."
17. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav and
Another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph nos. 8, 27
and 29 as under: -
"8. The learned counsel for the respondent-accused
supported the impugned order and submitted that
though the previous counsel had cross-examined the
witnesses, he had not asked relevant questions nor
given suggestions which were required to be given.
He placed reliance on Kishore Chand v. State of
H.P. [Kishore Chand v. State of H.P., (1991) 1 SCC
286 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 172] , Hardeep Singh v. State of
Punjab [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 16
SCC 785 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 355] , Ram
Chander v. State of Haryana [Ram Chander v. State
of Haryana, (1981) 3 SCC 191 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 683]
, State of Rajasthan v. Ani [State of Rajasthan v. Ani,
(1997) 6 SCC 162 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 851] , Ritesh
Tewari v. State of U.P. [Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P.,
(2010) 10 SCC 677 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 315] , Maria
Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de
Sequeira [Maria Margarida Sequeira
Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC
2025:CHC-AS:1123
28
370 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 126] , Rajeswar Prasad
Misra v. State of W.B. [Rajeswar Prasad
Misra v. State of W.B., AIR 1965 SC 1887 : (1965) 2
Cri LJ 817 : (1966) 1 SCR 178] , Jamatraj Kewalji
Govani v. State of Maharashtra [Jamatraj Kewalji
Govani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 178 :
1968 Cri LJ 231 : (1967) 3 SCR 415]
, Raghunandan v. Stateof U.P. [Raghunandan v. State
of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 186 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 355]
, Shailendra Kumar v. State of Bihar [Shailendra
Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 655 : 2002
SCC (Cri) 230] , Satyajit Banerjee v. State of
W.B. [Satyajit Banerjee v. State of W.B., (2005) 1 SCC
115 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 276] , UT of Dadra & Nagar
Haveli v. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan [UT of
Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. Fatehsinh Mohansinh
Chauhan, (2006) 7 SCC 529 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 300]
, Iddar v. Aabida [Iddar v. Aabida, (2007) 11 SCC 211
: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 22] , Himanshu Singh
Sabharwal v. State of M.P. [Himanshu Singh
Sabharwal v. State of M.P., (2008) 3 SCC 602 : (2008)
2 SCC (Cri) 106] , Godrej Pacific Tech.
Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd. [Godrej Pacific Tech.
Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd., (2008) 11 SCC 108 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 455] , Hanuman Ram v. State of
Rajasthan [Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan,
(2008) 15 SCC 652 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1149]
, Sudevanand v. State [Sudevanand v. State, (2012) 3
SCC 387 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 179] , Mohd.
Hussain v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Mohd.
2025:CHC-AS:1123
29
Hussain v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2012) 2 SCC
584: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 919: AIR 2012 SC 750], J.
Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka [J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 2 SCC 401: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 824] and Salamat
Ali v. State [Salamat Ali v. State, 2010 SCC OnLine
Del 1343: (2010) 174 DLT 558].
27. It is difficult to approve the view taken by the
High Court. Undoubtedly, fair trial is the objective and
it is the duty of the court to ensure such fairness.
Width of power under Section 311 CrPC is beyond
any doubt. Not a single specific reason has been
assigned by the High Court as to how in the present
case recall of as many as 13 witnesses was
necessary as directed in the impugned order. No fault
has been found with the reasoning of the order of the
trial court. The High Court rejected on merits the only
two reasons pressed before it that the trial was
hurried and the counsel was not competent. In the
face of rejecting these grounds, without considering
the hardship to the witnesses, undue delay in the
trial, and without any other cogent reason, allowing
recall merely on the observation that it is only the
accused who will suffer by the delay as he was in
custody could, in the circumstances, be hardly
accepted as valid or serving the ends of justice. It is
not only matter of delay but also of harassment for
the witnesses to be recalled which could not be
2025:CHC-AS:1123
30
justified on the ground that the accused was in
custody and that he would only suffer by prolonging
of the proceedings. 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 recall. Recall is not a matter
of course and the discretion given to the court has to
be exercised 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
uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled
for delay in the trial. Having regard to these
considerations, we do not find any ground to justify
the recall of witnesses already examined.
29. We may now sum up our reasons for
disapproving the view of the High Court in the present
case:
(i) The trial court and the High Court held that the
accused had appointed counsel of his choice. He was
facing trial in other cases also. The earlier counsel
2025:CHC-AS:1123
31were given due opportunity and had duly conducted
cross-examination. They were under no handicap;
(ii) No finding could be recorded that the counsel
appointed by the accused were incompetent
particularly at the back of such counsel;
(iii) Expeditious trial in a heinous offence as is alleged
in the present case is in the interests of justice;
(iv) The trial court as well as the High Court rejected
the reasons for recall of the witnesses;
(v) The Court has to keep in mind not only the need
for giving fair opportunity to the accused but also the
need for ensuring that the victim of the crime is not
unduly harassed;
(vi) Mere fact that the accused was in custody and
that he will suffer by the delay could be no
consideration for allowing recall of witnesses,
particularly at the fag end of the trial;
(vii) Mere change of counsel cannot be ground to recall
the witnesses;
(viii) There is no basis for holding that any prejudice
will be caused to the accused unless the witnesses
are recalled;
(ix) The High Court has not rejected the reasons given
by the trial court nor given any justification for
permitting recall of the witnesses except for making
general observations that recall was necessary for
ensuring fair trial. This observation is contrary to the
reasoning of the High Court in dealing with the
grounds for recall i.e. denial of fair opportunity on
2025:CHC-AS:1123
32account of incompetence of earlier counsel or on
account of expeditious proceedings;
(x) There is neither any patent error in the approach
adopted by the trial court rejecting the prayer for
recall nor any clear injustice if such prayer is not
granted.”
Finally, learned counsel prayed for setting aside of the
impugned order passed by the Learned Trial Court.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2:
18. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
accused/opposite party no. 2 strongly opposed the prayer made by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and further
submitted that the Learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the
application and permitted the accused/opposite party no. 2 to cross-
examine the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 citing the reason that it is necessary
to come to a just decision and it is a purely discretionary power of the
Learned Trial Court for interest of justice.
19. Therefore, the Learned Trial Court has allowed such prayer
as stipulated for recalling of witnesses under Section 311 of the
CrPC. The judgments relied by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner are not at all applicable in the present case as
2025:CHC-AS:1123
33
the accused person had few questions left to be asked to the
prosecution witnesses which are relevant for coming to a final
conclusion of the case. Accordingly, the opposite party no. 2 filed
such application and same with allowed with costs of Rs. 800/-. The
costs to be paid to the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 by paying them Rs. 200/-
only each as they will turn up to depose before the Learned Court.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted
that the Trial court has allowed the application for just decision of the
case as such same is not required to be interfered by this court.
21. Now, the question arises from the contentions of the parties
that as to whether the Learned Trial Court was rightly allowed the
application for recalling of the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 with cogent reason
after lapse of 7 to 14 years of their examination and cross-
examination only on the ground that the said application is needed to
be necessary to come to a just decision?
22. Before dealing with the case on merit, this Court would like to
set out the provisions stipulated under Section 311 of the CrPC as
follows: –
2025:CHC-AS:1123
34“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.”
23. Upon meticulous perusal of the aforesaid provisions, the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as aforesaid and
the application filed by the accused/opposite party no. 2 for recalling
of the witnesses, this Court finds that the application lacks sufficient
particulars and justification.
24. Accused/opposite party no. 2 only indicated that the doctors
and Investigating Officer have not been examined and some questions
were inadvertently omitted during the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1,
2, 3 and 5 for the purpose of contradiction and confrontation. The
prayer for recall is, thus, required only for further cross-examination
as the same is essential to the just decision of the case otherwise the
accused/opposite party no. 2 will be highly prejudiced.
2025:CHC-AS:1123
35
25. However, as it is evident from the petition, the
accused/opposite party no. 2 filed the recalling application only to re-
examine the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 after lapse of 7 to 14 years without
explaining any valid reasons or the questions which are left out
during their previous cross-examination. Without considering these
facts, the Learned Trial Court allowed the application for recalling of
the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for re-examination without knowing the
particular questions, which were left out by the accused/opposite
party no. 2 while cross-examining the aforesaid prosecution
witnesses.
26. Despite, this lack of clarity and absence of a well founded
explanation, the Learned Trial Court allowed the application for
recalling the prosecution witnesses to come to a just decision based
on a judgment placed by the accused/opposite party in the case of
Rajesh Agarwal v. State of West Bengal5.
27. Upon careful perusal of the evidences of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5,
this Court finds after full examination and cross-examination, their
evidence was closed and they were discharged. No specific questions
stipulated either in the application or indicated during the hearing.
The Learned Trial Court had also not indicated the valid reasons for
5
(2011) 2 C Cr LR (Cal) 676
2025:CHC-AS:1123
36
recalling of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses after long gaps of
about 7 to 14 years.
28. In Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and Another,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph no. 14 as under: –
“14. A conspicuous reading of Section 311 CrPC
would show that widest of the powers have been
invested with the courts when it comes to the question
of summoning a witness or to recall or re-examine any
witness already examined. A reading of the provision
shows that the expression “any” has been used as a
prefix to “court”, “inquiry”, “trial”, “other proceeding”,
“person as a witness”, “person in attendance though
not summoned as a witness”, and “person already
examined”. By using the said expression “any” as a
prefix to the various expressions mentioned above, it
is ultimately stated that all that was required to be
satisfied by the court was only in relation to such
evidence that appears to the court to be essential for
the just decision of the case. Section 138 of the
Evidence Act, prescribed the order of examination of a
witness in the court. The order of re-examination is
also prescribed calling for such a witness so desired
for such re-examination. Therefore, a reading of
Section 311 CrPC and Section 138 Evidence Act,
insofar as it comes to the question of a criminal trial,
the order of re-examination at the desire of any
person under Section 138, will have to necessarily be
2025:CHC-AS:1123
37in consonance with the prescription contained in
Section 311 CrPC. It is, therefore, imperative that the
invocation of Section 311 CrPC and its application in
a particular case can be ordered by the court, only by
bearing in mind the object and purport of the said
provision, namely, for achieving a just decision of the
case as noted by us earlier. The power vested under
the said provision is made available to any court at
any stage in any inquiry or trial or other proceeding
initiated under the Code for the purpose of
summoning any person as a witness or for examining
any person in attendance, even though not
summoned as witness or to recall or re-examine any
person already examined. Insofar as recalling and re-
examination of any person already examined is
concerned, the court must necessarily consider and
ensure that such recall and re-examination of any
person, appears in the view of the court to be
essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore,
the paramount requirement is just decision and for
that purpose the essentiality of a person to be
recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained. To
put it differently, while such a widest power is
invested with the court, it is needless to state that
exercise of such power should be made judicially and
also with extreme care and caution.”
29. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further laid
down the following principles while dealing with an application under
2025:CHC-AS:1123
38
Section 311 of the CrPC read along with Section 138 of the Evidence
Act, 1872 after conspectus consideration of various earlier decisions
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: –
17.1. Whether the court is right in thinking that the
new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence
sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the
court for a just decision of a case?
17.2. 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.
17.3. If evidence of any witness appears to the court
to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the
power of the court to summon and examine or recall
and re-examine any such person.
17.4. The exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC
should be resorted to only with the object of finding
out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts,
which will lead to a just and correct decision of the
case.
17.5. The exercise of the said power cannot be
dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case,
2025:CHC-AS:1123
39unless the facts and circumstances of the case make
it apparent that the exercise of power by the court
would result in causing serious prejudice to the
accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
17.6. The wide discretionary power should be
exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
17.7. The court must satisfy itself that it was in every
respect essential to examine such a witness or to
recall him for further examination in order to arrive at
a just decision of the case.
17.8. The object of Section 311 CrPC simultaneously
imposes a duty on the court to determine the truth
and to render a just decision.
17.9. The court arrives at the conclusion that
additional evidence is necessary, not because it
would be impossible to pronounce the judgment
without it, but because there would be a failure of
justice without such evidence being considered.
17.10. Exigency of the situation, fair play and good
sense should be the safeguard, while exercising the
discretion. The court should bear in mind that no
party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting
errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or
a relevant material was not brought on record due to
2025:CHC-AS:1123
40any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous
in permitting such mistakes to be rectified.
17.11. The court should be conscious of the position
that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners
and the court should afford an opportunity to them in
the fairest manner possible. In that parity of
reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the
accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting
the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost
of the accused. The court should bear in mind that
improper or capricious exercise of such a
discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results.
17.12. The additional evidence must not be received
as a disguise or to change the nature of the case
against any of the party.
17.13. The power must be exercised keeping in mind
that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would
be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that
an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party.
17.14. 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
2025:CHC-AS:1123
41victim 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.
30. Therefore, while allowing the application filed by the
accused/opposite party no. 2, the Learned Trial Court completely
disregarded the principal objectives with which the provisions of
Section 311 of CrPC has been brought into statute. While allowing
the recall application, the Learned Trial Court did not consider
purpose of filing application by the accused/opposite party no. 2 after
lapse of 7 to 14 years of examination of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5. The
impugned order does not reflect any of the issues or reasons save and
except stating it is for just decision of the case, mechanically and
without assigning any valid reasons, allowed the said application,
which is not at all permissible in the law after such long delay of 7 to
14 years of examination and cross examination of the prosecution
witnesses.
31. This Court is conscious that the accused person has the
right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and same is the
Constitutional right of an accused in a criminal trial. But in the
present case the accused/opposite party wanted to re-examine the P.
2025:CHC-AS:1123
42
W. nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 after elapse of 7 to 14 years of their full
examination and cross-examination.
32. In my considered view, the Learned Trial Court failed to
appreciate the actual purpose and prospect of Section 311 of the
CrPC while allowing the application for recall of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5
after such long delay of 7 to 14 years. No specific grounds or
questions were brought before the Learned Trial Court by the
accused/opposite party no. 2 either in an application or at the time of
hearing to satisfy why further cross examination is required.
Furthermore, the Learned Trial Court also failed to understand the
reason for filing such application after long gaps of 7 to 14 years of
closing of evidence. To fulfil the lacuna, such prayer cannot be
allowed by the Learned Trial Court in its discretionary power. Ample
opportunity was given to the accused/opposite party no. 2 while
cross-examining of those prosecution witnesses which is reflected
from the evidence itself. The law is well-settled that discretion under
Section 311 of CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent
miscarriage of justice, not to fill up lacunae in the defence case. The
record clearly indicates that the accused had full and adequate
opportunity to cross-examine the said prosecution witnesses and no
grievance was raised at the time of discharge. Therefore, permitting
re-examination at this stage would amount to an abuse of process of
2025:CHC-AS:1123
43
law and would cause grave prejudice to the complainant and
prosecution, ultimately resulting miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the
Learned Trial Court had not exercised its discretionary power under
Section 311 of CrPC judiciously and with great care and consciously
as such it is a totally perversity and against the law. Therefore, the
said impugned order is liable to be set aside.
33. Accordingly, CRR 846 of 2022 is, thus, allowed. Connected
application being CRAN 7 of 2023 is also, thus, disposed of.
34. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18th February,
2022 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Contai,
Purba Medinipur in connection with G.R. Case No. 83 of 2006 arising
out of Contai Police Station Case No. 28/06 dated 15.02.2006 under
Sections 323/324/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby
set aside. The Learned Trial Court is directed to take appropriate
steps and make further endeavour to conclude the trial as
expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
35. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Court
below for information.
36. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
37. Case Diary, if any, be returned to the learned counsel for the
State.
2025:CHC-AS:1123
44
38. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment
uploaded on the website of this Court.
39. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
legal formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
P. Adak (P.A.)
[ad_2]
Source link