Belated witness recall under Section 311 CrPC is impermissible without sufficient grounds and cannot fill evidentiary lacunae.

The petitioner, the de facto complainant, challenged under Article 227 an order of the 16th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, allowing the accused’s application under Section 311 CrPC to recall and further cross-examine P.W. 3.

The prosecution arose from an allegation that the accused had wrongfully restrained and threatened the complainant over possession of a shop and godown.

By the time the recall application was allowed, the prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined, and P.W. 3 had been extensively cross-examined about five years earlier.

The Magistrate allowed recall at the stage of recording statements under Section 313 CrPC without giving reasons.

1. Whether the Magistrate properly exercised the power under Section 311 CrPC by allowing P.W. 3 to be recalled for further cross-examination at the Section 313 stage.

2. Whether the recall order was liable to be set aside for being unsupported by sufficient grounds and passed without proper judicial application of mind.

Section 311 CrPC empowers a court, at any stage of an inquiry or trial, to summon or examine a person, or recall and re-examine a witness already examined; the court must do so where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.

The power is directed toward discovering the truth, preventing a miscarriage of justice, and ensuring a fair trial, but should not be used merely to fill lacunae in a party’s case.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

The High Court found that the defence had already conducted extensive cross-examination of P.W. 3 and that the witness had been examined about five years earlier.

The accused’s stated purpose—cross-examination “for contradiction”—was not supported by sufficient or reasonable grounds to establish that further evidence was essential to a just decision.

In those circumstances, the unexplained order allowing recall was mechanical and appeared intended to delay the proceedings or fill lacunae, rather than serve the purposes of Section 311 CrPC.

It directed the Trial Court to examine the accused under Section 313 CrPC, permit the accused to adduce defence evidence if necessary, and expedite and conclude the trial independently and in accordance with law.

The connected application was disposed of.