Belated witness recall under Section 311 cannot fill a defence lacuna absent demonstrated prejudice.

The petitioner-accused challenged the order dated 07.08.2026 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Sonamura, Sepahijala, in Special (NDPS) Case No. 91 of 2023 under Sections 22(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act, whereby his application for recalling PW1 Ashim Bhowmik, PW2 Aklima Begam, and PW6 SI Supratim Dey was rejected.

The recall application was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 23.07.2026, substantially after the witnesses had already been examined and cross-examined—PW1 and PW2 on 30.07.2024 and PW6 on 12.03.2025.

The petitioner contended that certain technical questions had not been put during the original cross-examination and that refusal to recall the witnesses would prejudice his defence.

The State opposed the application, arguing that it was highly belated, that the witnesses had already been cross-examined, and that the application sought to fill gaps or lacunae in the defence.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to recall PW1, PW2, and PW6 for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at a belated stage of the trial?

Whether rejection of the recall application caused demonstrated prejudice to the petitioner or otherwise occasioned a failure of justice warranting interference in revision?

The Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, corresponding to Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to examine the legality and propriety of the order under challenge.

The Court applied the principles governing recall of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C., namely, that recall must be necessary for a just decision of the case and must be exercised judiciously, not to fill lacunae, facilitate a retrial, or cause prejudice to the opposite party.

It relied on Hoffman Andreas v. Inspector of Customs, Amritsar, (2000) 10 SCC 430, concerning recall where inadequate cross-examination resulted from exceptional circumstances.

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402, on the absence of any automatic entitlement to recall witnesses without demonstrated prejudice.

Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 5 SCC 741, holding that the determinative consideration under Section 311 is whether the proposed evidence is essential for a just decision, with the power to be exercised for strong and valid reasons and with caution.

The Court found that the petitioner had approached the Trial Court only on 23.07.2026, long after the relevant witnesses had been examined and cross-examined in 2024 and 2025.

Although the petitioner alleged that certain technical questions had been omitted, he did not identify or submit the specific questions or points on which further cross-examination was sought, either before the Trial Court or the High Court.

The Court held that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice caused by the original cross-examination or by refusal of recall.

In these circumstances, the belated application appeared intended merely to fill gaps or lacunae in the defence, rather than to obtain evidence essential for a just adjudication.

The exceptional circumstances present in Hoffman Andreas were therefore absent, while the principles in Shiv Kumar Yadav and Natasha Singh supported refusal of the recall application.

It held that no sufficient or legally sustainable ground existed for recalling the witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C., and that the petitioner had failed to establish prejudice or any necessity for further cross-examination.

The criminal revision challenging the order dated 07.08.2026 was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.

No order as to costs was made, and the Trial Court was directed to be informed of the decision.