Trial Court’s inherent power to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC ensures fair trial despite procedural delays.

The petitioner, facing charges under Sections 137(2), 64(2), 65(2), and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 5(M)/6 of the POCSO Act, was in judicial custody.

On September 3, 2025, during a video conferencing hearing, he requested time to engage counsel.

On the next date, September 11, 2025, counsel could not be connected via video conferencing, and the petitioner again sought time to appoint an advocate.

The Trial Court closed the petitioner's right to cross-examine the prosecutrix and subsequently rejected his application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on January 30, 2026.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, asserting a violation of his right to a fair trial.

Whether the Trial Court committed a legal infirmity by closing the right to cross-examine and rejecting the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application despite the accused being unrepresented and in custody.

Whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the recall of a witness in the interest of justice despite procedural lapses by the defense.

The court applied Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which empowers a court to recall or re-examine any witness if their evidence is essential for a just decision.

It also considered the High Court of Jabalpur’s Order No. C/5645/III-6-5/2010, which mandates that in POCSO cases, adjournments for cross-examination should not exceed twice.

Furthermore, the court balanced the mandate for expeditious trials under the POCSO Act with the fundamental right to a fair trial and legal representation for an accused in custody.

The court observed that the Trial Court strictly followed the High Court’s administrative directions regarding POCSO trials by closing the cross-examination after the defense failed to utilize two opportunities.

The High Court noted that Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not a routine tool to fill lacunae or delay trials.

However, the court found that the petitioner's status in judicial custody and the initial lack of legal representation were significant factors that could lead to a miscarriage of justice if the right to cross-examine the primary witness (prosecutrix) was permanently denied.

While finding no technical illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s order, the High Court determined that a "fair adjudication on merits" necessitated one final opportunity for the defense.

However, in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial, the Court granted one final opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the prosecutrix on a date fixed by the Trial Court.

This was subject to the condition that the petitioner’s counsel must be present and conduct the examination without seeking further adjournments.