S K GARG Vs. C B I
LAWS(UTN)-2012-3-6
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on March 22,2012

S K GARG Appellant
VERSUS
C B I Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 14.02.2012, passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption (C.B.I) at Dehradun in Case No. 03 of 2003, CBI vs. Chandra Dutt and others, whereby said court has rejected the application of the revisionist under section 311 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order passed by the trial court on the application moved under section 311 of Cr.P.C, is erroneous in law. Section 311 of Cr.P.C, empowers the court to summon or examine any person in attendance or to recall or re-examine any person, already examined, if his evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. I agree with the learned counsel for the revisionist only to the extent that the trial court has power to recall or re-examine a witness, already examined, but this court is of the view that the power to recall the examined witness is not to be exercised lightly, or in a routine manner. If the power under section 311 of Cr.P.C, is examined lightly, this would encourage winning over of the witnesses and frustrate the object of fair trial. Perusal of the papers on record, and the impugned order shows that PW1 Dr. Ashok Kumar Baliyan has been examined and cross examined way back in the year 2005. The trial is pending since 2003. Application for recall of witness has been moved in the year 2011. The plea of the revisionist that certain questions are required to be asked to the PW1 by the defence counsel after examination of PW2 to clarify the inconsistency, can not be accepted. If the applications are allowed under section 311 of Cr.P.C, for clarification of the every contradiction in the statements of the witnesses, there will be no end to such applications. It is a matter for the trial court to appreciate the evidence on record, and come to the conclusion, whether to believe or not to believe the particular statement. In the opinion of this court the application no. 264B appears to have been moved by the revisionist before the trial court under section 311 of Cr.P.C, only to further delay the trial. For the reasons as discussed above, this court does not find any error of law committed by the trial court in rejecting the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the revision is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 245 of 2012 stands disposed of).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.