Section 311 permits prosecution to seek examination of witnesses previously given up or dropped.

Respondent No. 2’s complaint alleging offences under Sections 498A, 307, 495 and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered in 2015, and the case proceeded to trial

In July 2025, the prosecution gave up CWs. 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 16.

CW. 15 could not be secured despite repeated process, and the trial court rejected a request for further time and dropped that witness

The prosecution later applied under Section 311 CrPC to examine CWs. 3 and 15; the trial court allowed the application on 7 July 2026.

The accused challenged that order, arguing that the witnesses could not be recalled by the prosecution after being given up or dropped

Whether the prosecution is precluded from seeking examination under Section 311 CrPC of a witness earlier given up by the prosecution or dropped by the trial court

Whether, in those circumstances, the witness may be examined only if the court acts on its own motion and designates the witness as a court witness

Section 311 CrPC empowers the court, at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding, to summon and examine any person as a witness, examine a person in attendance, or recall and re-examine a person already examined; it requires the court to do so where the evidence appears essential to a just decision

The power may be considered on an application by either party or by the court on its own motion, but the decision remains with the court, which must independently assess the necessity of the evidence

In In re Venugopal Mudaliar, AIR 1952 Mad 509, the Madras High Court recognised the court’s power and duty to secure material evidence where needed for a just adjudication; that decision does not establish an absolute bar on a prosecution application to examine a witness previously given up

The court distinguished the circumstances of CW. 3, who had been given up, from those of CW. 15, who had been dropped after the prosecution was unable to secure his presence

Neither circumstance extinguished the court’s power to permit their later examination; the relevant question was whether their evidence would assist a just decision, subject to safeguards for a fair trial

Section 311 does not make the power dependent on whether a witness is formally designated a prosecution witness or a court witness, and the prosecution’s application does not displace the court’s independent discretion

The cited Madras decision therefore did not support the petitioners’ proposed restriction

The criminal petition was dismissed at the admission stage