Holding

The Supreme Court held that the appellant had locus standi and that the High Court erred in setting aside the Sessions Judge’s order; the re‑examination of PW4 and PW5 was not justified under Section 311.

Summary

The case arose from a murder trial where the charge sheet under IPC sections 302, 201, 342 and 120B was filed against two accused. Twenty‑eight witnesses, including PW4 (Sawarmal) and PW5 (Chandri), had given statements that supported the prosecution. After about fourteen months, PW4 and PW5 filed applications under Section 311 of the CrPC seeking re‑examination, alleging that their earlier statements were made under police pressure. The Sessions Judge rejected the applications, finding no coercion and noting the delay and lack of justification. The High Court set aside that order and allowed the re‑examination, prompting the appellant – the paternal brother of the deceased – to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had locus standi to file the petition and that the High Court was not justified in overturning the Sessions Judge’s order, emphasizing that Section 311’s discretion must be exercised only for strong, valid reasons and that the unexplained delay rendered the recall untenable. Consequently, the re‑examined statements were excluded and the High Court order was set aside.

Issues considered

The appellant's locus standi to challenge the High Court order under Article 136.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Sessions Judge's order and allowing re‑examination of PW4 and PW5 under Section 311 CrPC.
The proper scope and discretion of Section 311 CrPC in recalling or re‑examining witnesses.
The effect of delay and lack of justification on the exercise of Section 311 power.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 311, s. 482
Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 201, s. 302, s. 342

Subjects

locus standiSection 311 CrPCre‑examination of witnessmurder trialspecial leave petitionArticle 136discretionary powerdelay in applicationpolice pressure allegation

Judgment

(2017] 8 S.C.R. 682

A RATANLAL
v.
PRAHLAD JAT & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 499 of2014)
B SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.J
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.311 - Object of - Held: In order to enable the court to find
C out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provision of
s.311 is enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary
authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can
summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance
though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any
D person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light
upon the matter in dispute - The object of the provision as a whole
is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and
the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society
- This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons
and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection - Recall
E is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to
be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice - The reasons
for exercising this power should be spelt out in the order.

s.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Murder - Charge sheet
filed against respondent no.1 and 2 - Statement of 28 witnesses
F including of PW4 and PW5 recorded - PW4 and PW5 moved
applications before Sessions Judge uls.311 CrPC after passage of
14 months for re-recording their statements on the ground that the
previous statements were made under the influence of police and
stating that respondent no. l and 2 had no role in the incident -
G Sessions judge rejected the plea of police pressure and dismissed
the application - However, High Court u/s. 482 quashed the order
of Sessions judge thereby allowing the applications of PW4 and
PW5 - On appeal by uncle of deceased, held: PWs 4 and 5 were
examined and cross-examined at length - During the police
investigation and in their evidence, they have supported the
H
682
RATANLAL v. PRAHLAD JAT & ORS. 683

prosecution story - The Sessions Judge held that they were not under A
any pressure while recording their evidence - After a passage of 14
months, they filed the application for their re-examination on the
ground that the statements made by them earlier we~e under pressure
- They have not assigned any reasons for the delay in making
application - It seems that they had been won over - There is no
B
reason to allow such an application - The Sessions Judge, therefore,
was justified in rejecting the application - High Court was not right
in setting aside the said order """ The records show that after the
order of the High Court, PWs 4 and 5 were re-examined before the
trial court - Trial court is directed to proceed with the matter without
taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 recorded C
after the order of the High Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302,
201, 342, 120B.

Locus standi:

Meaning of - Discussed. D

Murder case - Locus standi of uncle of the victim-deceased
to challenge the order of High Court whereby the applications of
prosecution witnesses to re-record their statements on the ground -
that previous statements were made under police pressure were E
allowed - Held: Anyone can set the criminal law in motion except
where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the
contrary - This general principle is founded on a policy that an
offence, that is an act or omission made punishable by any law for
the time being in force, is not merely an offence committed in relation
to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence against the F
society - Therefore, in respect of such offences which are treated
against the society, it becomes the duty of the State to punish the
offender - Art. 136 does not confer a right to appeal on any party
but it confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere
in suitable cases - The exercise of the power of the court is not G
circumscribed by any limitation as to who may invoke it - It does
not confer a right to appeal, it confers only a right to apply for
special leave to appeal - Therefore, there was no bar for the
_appellant to apply for special leave to appeal as he is an aggrieved
person - Constitution of India - Art.136.
H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The first question for consideration is whether
the appellant has locus standi to challenge the order of the High
Court. In Black's Law Dictionary, the meaning assigned to the
term 'locus standi' is 'the right to bring an action or to be heard
B in a given forum'. One of the meanings assigned to the term
'locus standi' in Law Lexicon of Sri P.Ramanatha Aiyar, is 'a right
of appearance in a Court of justice'. The traditional view of locus
standi has been that the person who is aggrieved or affected has
the standing before the court, that is to say, he only has a right to
move the court for seeking justice. The orthodox rule of
C interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the
Court has undergone a sea change with the development of
constitutional law in India and the Constitutional Courts have
been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or
dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-technical
D grounds. It is now well-settled that if the person is found to be
not merely a stranger to the case, he cannot be non-suited on the
ground of his not having locus standi. However, criminal trial is
conducted largely by following the procedure laid down in Cr.P.C.
Locus standi of the complaint is a concept foreign to criminal
jurisprudence. Anyone can set the criminal law in motion except
E where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the
contrary. This general principle is founded on a policy that an
offence, that is an act or omission made punishable by any law for
the time being in force, is not merely an offence committed in
relation to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence
F against the society. Therefore, in respect of such offences which
are treated against the society, it becomes the duty of the State
to punish the offender. [Paras 7-91 1689-D-H; 690-A-BI
1.2 Article 136 does not confer a right to appeal on any
party but it confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court
G to interfere in suitable cases. The exercise of the power of the
court is not circumscribed by any limitation as to who may invoke
it. It does not confer a right to appeal, it confers only a right to
apply for special leave to appeal. Therefore, there was no bar for
the appellant to apply for special leave to appeal as he is an
aggrieved person. This Court in exercise of its discretion granted
H
RATANLAL v. PRAHLAD JAT & ORS. 685

permission to the appellant to file the special leave petition on A
03.08.2012 and leave was granted on 24.02.2014. [Para 15) [692-
G-H; 693-A)
2.1 Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside
the order of the Sessions Judge and allowing the application filed
by PWs 4 and 5 for their re-examination. In order to enable the B
court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary
·provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by
exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial
or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or
examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a
witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who C
are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute.
The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only
from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but
also from the point of view of an orderly society. This power is to
be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be D
exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter
of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised
judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the reasons for
exercising this power should be spelt out in the order. [Paras 16,
171 (693-B, E-FI
E
A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr. (1984)
2 SCC 500 : [1984) 2 SCR 914; Manohar Lal v. Vinesh
Anand & Ors. (2001) 5 SCC 407 : (20011 2 SCR
1036; Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham & Anr.
(1979) 2 sec 297 : [19791 3 SCR 482; P.S.R
Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr. (1980) 3 SCC F
141; Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai & Ors. (2003) 12
SCC 395 : (2003) 4 Suppl. SCR 17; Esher Singh v.
State of A.P. (2004) 11 SCC 585 : [2004) 2 SCR 1180;
Amanullah and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2016) 6
SCC 699 : (2016] 2 SCR 1027 - relied on. G
2.2 Coming to the facts of the present case, PWs 4 and 5
were examined between 29.11.2010 and 11.3.2011. They were
cross-examined at length during the said period. During the police
investigation and in their evidence, they have supported the
prosecution story. The Sessions Judge has recorded a finding H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 8 S.C.R.

A that they were not under any pressure while recording their
evidence. After a passage of 14 months, they have filed the
application for their re-examination on the ground that the
statements made by them earlier were under pressure. They
have not assigned any reasons for the delay in making application.
B It is obvious that they had been won over. There are no reasons
to allow such an application. The Sessions Judge, therefore, was
justified in rejecting the application. High Court was not right in
setting aside the said order. The records show that after the
order of the High Court, PWs 4 and 5 were re-examined before
the Trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the
C matter without taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 4
and 5 recorded after the order of the High Court. (Paras 22, 24)
[695-G-H; 696-A-B, CJ
Vljay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Am: (2011)
8 SCC 136 : (20111 11 SCR 893; Zahira Habibullah
D Sheikh (5) and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Others
(2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCR 1081; State (NCT
of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr. (2016) 2 SCC
402 : [2015110 SCR 455; Umar Mohammad & Ors. v.
State ofRajasthan (2007) 14 SCC 711 : (2007113 SCR
273 - relied on.
E
Case Law Reference
[19841 2 SCR 914 relied on Para 9
(2001) 2 SCR 1036 relied on Para 10
[1979) 3 SCR 482 relied on Para 11
F
(1980) 3 sec 141 relied on Para 12
(2003) 4 Suppl. SCR 17 relied on Para 13
[2004) 2 SCR 1180 relied on Para 13

G (2016) 2 SCR 1027 relied on Para 14
[2011) 11 SCR 893 relied on Para 18
(20061 2 SCR 1081 relied on Para 19
(2015 10 SCR 455 relied on Para 20
H [2007) 13 SCR 273 relied on Para 21
RATANLAL v. PRAHLAD JAT & ORS. 687

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A
No.499 of2014.
From the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2012
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at
Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1679 of2012.
Abhishek Gupta, Ms. Rohini Moosa, Advs. for the Appellant. B

Rishi Matoliya, Ms. Sumati Sharma, Ms.Iti Jain, H.D. Thanvi,
Sudhakar (for Ms. Charu Mathur), Milind Kumar, Sarad Kumar Singhania,
Advs. for the Respondents.
· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the
order dated 22.5.2012 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1679
of2012, whereby the High Court ofRajasthan (Jaipur Bench) has allowed
the criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1908 and has set aside the order dated 24.04.2012 D
passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast- Track), Sikar.
2. A charge sheet No.22 of 2009 dated 20.3.2009 was presented
under Sections 302, 201, 342, 120-B IPC against respondent Nos.I and
2 and three others. Charges have been framed under the aforesaid
Sections against the accused persons. Statements of 28 witnesses have E
been recorded in the trial. The statements of Sawarmal and Chandri
have been recorded as PW4 and PW5 respectively. Thereafter, both
moved applications before the Sessions Judge under Section 311 ofCr.P.C.
for re-recording their statements on the ground that the previous
·statements were made under the influence of the police. In the
applications, the witnesses have stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had F
no role in the incident.
3. The Sessions Judge by the order dated 24.4.2012, dismissed
the applications observing that the 28 witnesses had already been
examined in the case so far. The witnesses were also cross-examined
at length and it cannot be said that they were in any kind of pressure and G
that the applications were filed with a view to favour the accused persons .
.Prahlad Jat and Mahavir, the two accused persons, moved the petition
before the High Court for quashing the said order and the High Court
has allowed the applications of PW4 and PW5.
H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, urged that PW4 and PW5
were examined in the Court on different dates in the months ofNovember
and December 2010 and in March 2011. Out of total 35 witnesses, 28
witnesses have already been examined and they were cross-examined
at length. PWs 4 and 5 filed applications before the trial court for further
B examination on 27.2.2012 and 26.3.2012 respectively. During police
investigation and examination conducted by the prosecution, they had
supp01ted the prosecution story. The applications have been filed with
an intention to provide assistance to the accused persons which cannot
be permitted in law. The applications are highly belated and no reason,
whatsoever, has been assigned for the delay. Therefore, the High Court
C was not justified in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the Sessions
Judge.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.4 submits that the appellant has no locus standi to file this appeal.
It is contended that the Sessions Judge has ample power to examine or
D re-examine any witness under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to bring on
record the best possible evidence to meet the ends of justice. Keeping
this principle in mind the High Court has allowed the petition. Learned
counsel appearing for the third respondent has supported the case of the
appellant. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned
counsel made at the Bar.
E
6. The appellant is the paternal brother of the deceased and is one
of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of PW4 and PW5 was
recorded on different dates in the months of November and December
20 IO and in March 2011. Both of them had supported the case of the
prosecution. After passage of about 14 months, PW4 and PW5 filed
F applications under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., inter alia, praying for their
re-examination as witnesses for the reason that the statements recorded
earlier were made on the instructions of the police. The Sessions Judge
dismissed the application by holding as under:
"The charges have already been framed under sections 302, 20 I,
G 342, 120 B IPC against the accused persons. Statements of 28
witnesses have already been recorded in the trial. The statements
of applicant namely Sawarmal has already been recorded as
witness PW4 and the statements of applicant namely Chandri
have also already been recorded as witness PW5. Thereafter,
H
RATANLAL v. PRAHLAD JAT & ORS. 689
[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

the said applications have been filed. Said witnesses have already A
undergone a lengthy cross examination. During the police
investigation and examination conducted by the prosecution,
wherein they have supported prosecution story, it cannot be said
that at such time, the witnesses were under any pressure. In
such circumstances, it is not justified to make the Court as weapon B
to adjudicate in own favour and the above both applications are
without any merit and presented with the intention to provide
assistance to the accused persons, due to which, the same are not
liable to be admitted. Resultant, the above presented both
applications dated27.02.2012 and26.03.2012 under section 311
. CrPC on behalf of the applicants are not liable to be admitted, C
therefore, the same are dismissed".
· This order of the Sessions Judge has been set aside by the High
Court.
7. Having regard to the contentions urged, the first question for
consideration is whether the appellant has locus standi to challenge the D
order of the High Court.
8. In Black's Law Dictionary, the meaning assigned to the term
'locus standi' is 'the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given
forum'. One of the meanings assigned to the term 'locus standi' in
Law Lexicon of Sri P.Ramanatha Aiyar, is 'a right of appearance in a E
Court of justice'. The traditional view of locus standi has been that the
person who is aggrieved or affected has the standing before the court,
that is to say, he only has a right to move the court for seeking justice.
The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person
to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of F
constitutional law in India and the Constitutional Courts have been
_adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the
claini of a litigant merely on hyper-technical grounds. It is now well-
settled that if the person is found to be not merely a stranger to the case,
he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having locus standi.
G
9. However, criminal trial is conducted largely by following the
procedure laid down in Cr.P.C. Locus standi of the complaint is a
concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence. Anyone can set the criminal
law in motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence
indicates to the contrary. This general principle is founded on a policy
H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A that an offence, that is an act or omission made punishable by any law
for the time being in force, is not merely an offence committed in relation
to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence against the society.
Therefore, in respect of such offences which are treated against the
society, it becomes the duty of the State to punish the offender. In A.R.
B Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr. (1984) 2 SCC 500, a
Constitution Bench of this Court has considered this aspect as under:-
"In other words, the principle that anyone can set or put the
criminal law in motion remains intact unless contra-indicated by a
statutory provision. This general principle of nearly universal
application is founded on a policy that an offence i.e. an act or
c omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force
[See Section 2(n) CrPC] is not merely an offence committed in
relation to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence
against society. The society for its orderly and peaceful
development is interested in the punishment of the offender.
D Therefore, prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in the
name of the State representing the people which would exclude
any element of private vendetta or vengeance. If such is the public
policy underlying penal statutes, who brings an act or omission
made punishable by law to the notice of the authority competent
to deal with it, is immaterial and irrelevant unless the statute
E indicates to the contrary. Punishment of the offender in the interest
of the society being one of the objects behind penal statutes
enacted for larger good of the society, right to initiate proceedings
cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it
into a strait-jacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal
F jurisprudence, save and except specific statutory exception".
10. In Manohar Lal v. Vinesh Anand & Ors. (2001) 5 SCC
407, this Court has held that doctrine of locus standi is totally foreign to
criminal jurisprudence. To punish an offender in the event of commission
of an offence is to subserve a social need. Society cannot afford to
G have a criminal escape his liability since that would bring about a state of
social pollution which is neither desired nor warranted and this is
irrespective of the concept of locus.
11. In Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham & Anr. ( 1979) 2
SCC 297, this Court has considered the competence of a private party,
H
RATANLAL v. PRAHLAD JAT & ORS. 691
[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

.as di~tinguished from the State to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court A
under Article 136 of the Constitution against a judgment of acquittal by
the High Court. It was held that appellate power vested in the Supreme
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not to be confused with
ordinary appellate power exercised by appellate courts and appellate
tribunals under specific statutes. Article 136 of the Constitution vests B
the Supreme Court with a plentitude of plenary, appellate power over all
Courts and Tribunals in India. The power is plenary in the sense that
there are no words in Article 136 itself qualifying that power. But, the
very nature of the power has led the Court to set limits to itself within
which it has to exercise such power. The power is vested in the Supreme
Court but the right to invoke the Court's jurisdiction is vested in no one. C
The exercise of the power of the Supreme Court is not circumscribed
by any limitation as to who niay invoke it. The Court found that the
judgment of acquittal by the High Court has led to serious miscarriage of
justice. Therefore, it was held that Supreme Court cannot refrain from
doing its duty and abstain from interfering on the ground that a private D
·party and not the State has invoked the Court's jurisdiction.
12. The accused in Arunachalam (supra) had filed a writ petition
under Article 32 contending that the Supreme Court has no power to
grant special leave to the brother of the deceased. This writ petition
was decided by a Constitution Bench in P.S.R Sadhanantham v.
Arunachalam & Anr. (1980) 3 SCC 141. Rejecting the contention of E
the petitioner, this Court held as under:-
"ln express terms, Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal
on a party as such but it confers a wide discretionary power on
the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. It is residuary
power and is extraordinary in its amplitude. But the Constitution F
makers intended in the very terms of Article 136 that it shall be
exercised by the highest judges of the land with scrupulous
adherence to judicial principles well established by precedents in
our jurisprudence. Article 136 has a composite structure of power-
cum-procedure inasmuch as there is an in-built prescription of G
exercise of judicial discretion and mode of hearing. It is fair to
assume that while considering the petition under Article 136 the
court will pay attention to the question ofliberty, the person who
seeks such leave from the court, his motive and his locus standi

H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A and the weighty factors which persuade the court to grant special
leave. When this conspectus of processual circumstances and
criteria play upon the jurisdiction of the court under Article 136, it
is reasonable to conclude that the desideratum of fair procedure
implied in Article 21 is adequately answered. Though parties
promiscuously 'provoke' this jurisdiction, the court parsimoniously
B
invokes the power. Moreover, the court may not, save in special
situations, grant leave to one who is not eo nomine a party on the
record. Thus, procedural limitations exist and are governed by
well-worn rules of guidance".
13. In Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai & Ors. (2003) 12 SCC
C 395, and Esher Singh v. State of A.P. (2004) 11 SCC 585, it was held
that the Supreme Court can entertain appeals against the judgment of
acquittal by the High Court at the instance of interested parties also.
The circumstance that Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for
an appeal to the High Court against an order of acquittal by a subordinate
D court at the instance of a private party has no relevance to the question
of power of Supreme Court under Article 136.
14. In Amanullah andAnr. v. State ofBiharand Ors. (2016) 6
SCC 699, this Court has held that the aggrieved party cannot be left to
the mercy of the State to file an appeal. It was held as under:-
E "19 ...... Now turning our attention towards the criminal trial, which
is conducted, largely, by following the procedure laid down in
CrPC. Since, offence is considered to be a wrong committed
against the society, the prosecution against the accused person is
launched by the State. It is the duty of the State to get the culprit
F booked for the offence committed by him. The focal point, here,
is that if the State fails in this regard and the party having bona
fide connection with the cause of action, who is aggrieved by the
order of the court cannot be left at the mercy of the State and
without any option to approach the appellate court for seeking
justice''.
G
15. It is thus clear that Article 136 does not confer a right to
appeal on any party but it confers a discretionary power on the Supreme
Court to interfere in suitable cases. The exercise of the power of the
court is not circumscribed by any limitation as to who may invoke it. It
does not confer a right to appeal, it confers only a right to apply for
H
RATANLAL v. PRAHLAD JAT & ORS. 693
[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

special leave to appeal. Therefore, there was no bar for the appellant to A
apply for special leave to appeal as he is an aggrieved person. This
Court in exercise of its discretion granted permission to the appellant to
file the special leave petition on 03.08.2012 and leave was granted on
24.02.2014.
16. That brings us to the next question as to whether the High B
Court was justified in setting asidethe order of the Sessions Judge and
allowing the application filed by PWs 4 and 5 for their re-examination.
For ready reference Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is as under:
"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine
person present.- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, c
trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as
a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not
summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person
already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or
recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to
it to be essential to the just decision of the case". D
17. In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a
just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted
whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any
stage of inquiry, trial ot other proceeding can summon any person as
witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a E
witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are
expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The object
of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view
of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an
orderly society. This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid F
reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection.
Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has
to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the
reasons for exercising this power should be spelt out in the order.
18. In Vijay Kumarv. State ofUttar Pradesh andAnr., (2011) G
8 SCC 136, this Court while explaining scope and ambit of Section 311
has held as under:-
. "Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is
expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power
H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A under the said section can be invoked only for the ends ofjustice.
Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the
provisions of CrPC and the principles of criminal law. The
discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be
exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not
arbitrarily or capriciously".
B
19. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and Anr. v. State of
Gujarat and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 374, this Court has considered the
concept underlining under Section 311 as under:-
"The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may
c not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in
bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in
the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The
determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision
of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the
accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of
D the court to summon a witness under the section merely because
the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of
the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all
proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers
the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of
E such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant
expression that occurs is "at any stage of any inquiry or trial or
other proceeding under this Code". It is, however, to be borne in
mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the
court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be
exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the
F necessity for application ofjudicial mind".
20. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr.,
(2016) 2 sec 402, it was held thu:'.
".... . . . . . . . . . . . Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for
G
the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted
in the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary
"for ensuring fair trial" is not enough unless there are tangible
reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall
is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has
to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not
.H
RATANLAL v. PRAHLAD JAT & ORS. 695
[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona A
fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when
such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of
the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be
bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant
considerations including uncalled for hardship to the witnesses B
and uncalled for delay in the trial. Having regard to these
considerations, there is no ground to justify the recall of witnesse.s
already examined".
21. The delay in filing the application is one of the importantfactors
which has to explained in the application. In Umar Mohammad &
Ors. v. State ofRajasthan, (2007) 14 SCC 711, this Court has held as C
under:-
"Before parting, however, we may notice that a contention has
been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW l
who was examined in Court on 5-7-1994 purported to have filed
an application on 1-5-1995 stating that five accused persons named D
therein were innocent. An application filed by him purported to be
under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected
by the learned trial Judge by order dated 13-5-1995. A revision
petition was filed thereagainst and the High Court also rejected
the said contention. It is not a case where stricto sensu the E
provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could
have been invoked. The very fact that such an application was
got filed by PW 1 nine months after his deposition is itself pointer
to the fact.that he had been won over. It is absurd to contend that
he, after a period of four years and that too after his examination-
in-chief and cross-examination was complete, would file an F
application on his own will and v~li_tion. The said application was,
therefore, rightly dismissed".
22. Coming to the facts of the present case, PWs 4 and 5 were
examined between 29. l l.2010 and 11.3.2011. They were cross-examined
at length during the said period. During the police investigation and in G
their evidence, they have supported the prosecution story. The Sessions
Judge has recorded a finding that they were not under any pressure
while recording their evidence. After a passage of 14 months, they have
filed the application for their re-examination on the ground that the
H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 8 S.C.R.

A statements made by them earlier were under pressure. They have not
assigned any reasons for the delay in making application. It is obvious
that they had been won over. We do not find any reasons to allow such
an application. The Sessions Judge, therefore, was justified in rejecting
the application. In our view, High Court was not right in setting aside the
said order.
B
23. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed.
The order of the High Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
No.1679 of 2012, dated 22.5.2012 is hereby set aside. All pending
applications also stand disposed of.
c 24. We find from the records that after the order of the High
Court, PWs 4 and 5 were re-examined before the.Trial Court. The Trial
Court is directed to proceed with the matter without taking into
consideration the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 recorded after the order of
the High Court.

Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.