Suppression of concurrent proceedings and attempts to delay trial preclude relief under Section 233 CrPC.

The applicant, an accused in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2025 (consolidated with Sessions Case No. 5 of 2025), filed an application under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to examine defense witnesses.

This application followed the recording of the accused's statements under Section 313 of the CrPC on 27.03.2026, where the accused had initially stated that no witnesses were to be examined.

The prosecution argued that this was a dilatory tactic, noting that a previous application under Section 311 of the CrPC for the same purpose had already been rejected by the Trial Court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court—facts which the applicant failed to disclose in the present petition.

The Sessions Court rejected the Section 233 application on 04.05.2026, leading to this revision.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the applicant’s request to examine defense witnesses under Section 233 of the CrPC after the defense had previously declined to call witnesses during their Section 313 statement.

2. Whether the non-disclosure of prior unsuccessful litigation (up to the Supreme Court) regarding the recall of witnesses constitutes suppression of material facts.

Section 233 of the CrPC, which outlines the procedure for the accused to enter their defense and produce evidence, and Section 313 of the CrPC regarding the examination of the accused.

The principle of "clean hands" in litigation, emphasizing that the suppression of material facts—specifically the rejection of similar reliefs under Section 311 CrPC by higher forums—vitiates the petitioner's claim.

Supreme Court’s order in SLP (Crl.) No. 9183 of 2026, which protected the right to challenge document admissibility during final arguments rather than reopening evidence.

The court found that the applicant’s request was a "last ditch effort" to delay a trial nearing completion.

The court emphasized that the applicant had explicitly given up the right to examine witnesses during the Section 313 statement.

The court noted the applicant's "suppression" of the fact that they had already sought similar relief via Section 311 CrPC, which was dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The court reasoned that since the Supreme Court had already kept the question of document admissibility open for final arguments, the applicant’s right to a fair trial remained protected without the need to recall or introduce new witnesses at the final stage.

The apprehension regarding a free and fair trial was unfounded as the defense remains entitled to argue the admissibility of prosecution documents during closing arguments, as per the Supreme Court’s directions.

The High Court rejected the Revision Application and no costs were imposed.