Facts
The petitioners (accused) were charged under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Source reference: p. 1-2During trial, the complainant (PW-1) appeared for cross-examination on multiple dates (18.04.2024, 08.05.2024, 10.05.2024, 28.05.2024, and 31.08.2024), but the petitioners repeatedly sought adjournments.
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, the Sessions Court closed their right to cross-examine PW-1 on 31.08.2024.
Source reference: p. 3An application filed by the petitioners under Section 311 CrPC (Section 348 BNSS) to recall PW-1 was dismissed on 12.02.2025.
Source reference: p. 3-4The petitioners approached the High Court in December 2025, by which time almost all prosecution witnesses had been examined.
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC (Section 348 BNSS) was legally sustainable given the petitioners' conduct.
Source reference: p. 3-42. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to recall a witness when there has been substantial and unexplained delay by the applicant.
Source reference: p. 4-7Law Applied
The Court applied Section 311 of the CrPC [Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)], which grants courts the power to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence is essential to a just decision.
Source reference: p. 2-5The Court relied on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, establishing that recall is not a matter of course and requires "tangible reasons" to show how a fair trial suffered.
Source reference: p. 5-6The court cited Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, which held that the power must be exercised with "great caution and circumspection" and should not be invoked if the application constitutes an abuse of process or is filed at a belated stage without satisfactory reasons.
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioners were granted several opportunities to cross-examine PW-1 but failed to do so due to repeated adjournment requests.
Source reference: p. 3, 5It noted a significant lack of diligence, as the petitioners waited five and a half months to file the recall application after the right was closed, and another ten months to approach the High Court.
Source reference: p. 5, 7Applying the principles from Shiv Kumar Yadav and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee, the Court reasoned that the power to recall is intended to prevent a failure of justice, not to facilitate dilatory tactics or "squandering" of opportunities.
Source reference: p. 4, 6Given that the trial had progressed to the final witness (the Investigating Officer), the Court found that the petitioners' conduct demonstrated an attempt to obstruct the orderly progress of the trial rather than a bona fide pursuit of justice.
Source reference: p. 5, 7Holding
The High Court held that the petitioners’ unexplained delays and repeated adjournments disentitled them from seeking the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and that the power under Section 311 CrPC/348 BNSS cannot be exercised in a routine manner to bail out a party from their own negligence.
The High Court dismissed the petition and the pending application, refusing to recall PW-1, and clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal case.
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
Ujjawal Bhardwaj & Anr.vsState (Nct Of Delhi)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in