Prosecution can invoke powers of High Court to recall witness, even after closure of evidence, for just decision of the case
The case before Madhya Pradesh High Court was that petitioners who were accused persons facing trial for commission of offences of cheating of Penal Code challenged the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class wherein even though the right of the prosecution to produce the evidence was closed, Court has considered the prayer of State to the extent of calling the witness and report of Handwriting Expert. The right of the prosecution to produce the evidence was closed by the Trial Court on account of the long delay.
The question dealt with by the High Court was whether prayer of the prosecution to the extent of calling witness and report of handwriting expert could be allowed even after the closing of evidence of the prosecution.
Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with a summons to produce documents or other things and as the Section 91, a police officer or a Court considers that the production of any documents or other thing is necessary or desirable for any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, the police officer or such Court may issue an order or a summons to the person in whose possession or power, such documents or things are believed to be.
Also, Section 311 of Criminal P.C. is incorporated to enable either the prosecution or the defence or even the Court itself to take evidence at any stage even if the evidence is closed as the case may be. In Section 311 of Cr.P.C., it is stated that any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or another 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 the decision of the case. The power can be exercised at any stage of trial even after closing the right to produce the evidence and even becomes mandatory if the Court finds that the examination of such a person to be essential to the just decision of the case but same should be exercised judiciously and judicially.
The Apex Court has dealt with the issue and specifically held that even if the prosecution evidence is closed in compliance with the directions, it is still open to the prosecution to invoke the powers of the Court under Section 311 of the Code. The Higher Court of Law made it clear that if evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, the Court must summon and examine or recall and re-examine such a person.
Appearing Counsel/s - Pradeep Kumar Naveria, Brijendra Singh Kushwah
