Inherent powers cannot be invoked as a second revision to bypass statutory bars on recalling witnesses.

The Petitioner was facing trial for offences under Sections 420/408 of the IPC pursuant to a 2011 FIR.

During the trial, the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (PW-12) was deferred on 12.05.2023 due to the unavailability of the defense counsel.

Despite the Trial Court allowing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the witness, the defense counsel again failed to appear on 24.09.2024, leading to the witness being discharged.

Subsequent applications to recall the witness were dismissed by both the Trial Court (04.10.2024) and the Revisional Court (28.02.2025).

While the matter was pending, the Petitioner was declared an 'absconder' and arrested on 10.05.2026.

The Petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking to recall the witness.

1. Whether a witness can be recalled under Section 311 Cr.P.C. solely on the ground of non-availability of counsel when multiple opportunities were previously granted.

2. Whether a petition under the inherent powers of the High Court is maintainable when it serves as a second revision petition barred by law.

The Court applied Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 348 BNSS) regarding the power to summon material witnesses, noting that such power should not be exercised when the party's approach is "lethargic and sluggish".

Inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.) cannot be utilized to circumvent express statutory bars, such as the prohibition against a second revision petition.

The Court relied on Dharampal v. Ramshri (1993), Deepti Alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai (1995), and Sharma Welding Store v. Fortune Weld (2025) to affirm that inherent powers cannot be exercised where the law expressly bars a remedy.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner was solely responsible for his predicament because the Trial Court had granted sufficient indulgence which was not utilized.

The Court noted that the proxy counsel present during previous hearings was well-acquainted with the case, having cross-examined other witnesses (PW-1 and PW-11), yet chose not to cross-examine PW-12.

The Court emphasized that the "non-availability of counsel" is an insufficient ground for recall under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if the party's conduct is found to be non-bonafide or intended to delay an already 11-year-old case.

The Court analyzed the procedural nature of the petition, identifying it as a "second revision petition" disguised as an inherent powers petition, which is legally impermissible as it seeks to override statutory bars without showing any gross illegality or failure of justice.

The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit and maintainability, as inherent powers cannot be used to entertain a barred second revision. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.