High Court of Karnataka Allows Revision Petition by State Against Order Rejecting Application to Recall Witnesses in Spl.C. No.828/2018 — Held That Trial Court Erred in Holding That Recall Application Was Not Maintainable After Commencement of Trial Under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The High Court set aside the order and allowed the recall application subject to costs, directing expeditious trial.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 11:13:29

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The State of Karnataka, through the Special Public Prosecutor, filed a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The revision petition challenged an order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (Special Court for MLAs and MPs) in Spl.C. No.828/2018. By the impugned order, the trial court had rejected an application filed by the prosecution on 11.06.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall certain witnesses. The trial court rejected the application primarily on the ground that the trial had already commenced and the application was filed belatedly. The High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 06.08.2024, pronouncing it on 28.08.2024. The High Court observed that Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers a wide and unfettered power on the court to summon or recall any witness at any stage of the proceedings if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. The court noted that the trial court had erred in holding that the application was not maintainable after the commencement of trial. The High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the prosecution's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to each of the respondents. The court directed the trial court to recall the witnesses and permit their examination on a day-to-day basis, and to conclude the trial within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Recall of Witnesses - Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Maintainability After Commencement of Trial - The trial court rejected the prosecution's application to recall witnesses solely on the ground that the trial had commenced and the application was filed belatedly. The High Court held that Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide power on the court to summon or recall any witness at any stage if his evidence appears essential for the just decision of the case. The mere fact that trial has commenced does not bar the exercise of such power. The order of the trial court was set aside and the application was allowed subject to payment of costs. (Paras 1-10)

B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. - Interference with Interlocutory Order - The High Court entertained the revision petition against the order rejecting the recall application, holding that the order suffered from patent illegality and failure of justice would occasion if not interfered with. (Paras 1-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the prosecution's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses on the ground that the trial had already commenced and the application was filed belatedly?

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2024, and allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to each of the respondents. The trial court was directed to recall the witnesses and permit their examination on a day-to-day basis, and to conclude the trial within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Law Points

Recall of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is permissible even after commencement of trial if essential for just decision
Trial court cannot reject recall application solely on ground that trial has commenced
Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide and can be exercised at any stage

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (08) 10

Criminal Revision Petition No.942 of 2024

2024-08-28

M. Nagaprasanna

Sri M.S.Shyam Sundar, Spl.PP for petitioner; Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, Addl.SPP Amicus Curiae; Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya, Advocate for R-1 to R-5

State of Karnataka by the Special Public Prosecutor, in Spl.C. 828/2018, (Paper Town PS-Badravati-CID Police Versus Sangamesh and Others), pending on the file of CCH 82, Special Court for MPs and MLAs-Bangalore, c/o. CID Office, Bangalore and alternatively M.S.Shyamsundar, SPP, A1, Le-Chateau, 90, Infantry Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.

1. Shri. Sangamesh S/o. Bellada Kotrappa, aged about 53 years, residing at Parvati Krupa, OSM Road, Old Town, Badravathi, Shivamogga District, Badravathi – 577 201. 2. Shri B.K.Mohan, S/o. Bellada Kotrappa, aged about 63 years, residing at Parvati Krupa, OSM Road, Old Town, Badravathi, Shivamogga District, Badravathi – 577 201. 3. Shri Ganesh S/o. Sangamesh, aged about 37 years, residing at Parvati Krupa, OSM Road, Old Town, Badravathi, Shivamogga District, Badravathi – 577 201. 4. Shri. Basavaraj S/o. Sangamesh, aged about 35 years, residing at Parvati Krupa, OSM Road, Old Town, Badravathi, Shivamogga District, Badravathi – 577 201. 5. Shri Jagadish @ Jagannath S/o. Bellada Kotrappa, aged about 67 years, residing at Nandi Nivasa, Madavanagar, Tarikere Road, Badravathi, Shivamogga District, Badravathi – 577 201. 6. Shri. C.Mahesh Kumar, S/o. Late Chikkaiah, aged about 55 years, 137, Avvana Mane, Gandhinagar, Badravathi, Shivamogga District, Badravathi – 577 201.

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision petition against order rejecting application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner (State) sought to set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2024 and allow the application dated 11.06.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses.

Filing Reason

The trial court rejected the prosecution's application to recall witnesses on the ground that trial had commenced and application was belated.

Previous Decisions

The trial court passed the impugned order on 20.07.2024 in Spl.C. No.828/2018 rejecting the application.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the prosecution's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses on the ground that the trial had already commenced and the application was filed belatedly?

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in holding that the application was not maintainable after commencement of trial, as Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide power to recall witnesses at any stage if essential for just decision. The respondents opposed the application, contending that the trial had commenced and the application was filed belatedly.

Ratio Decidendi

The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings if the evidence of a witness appears essential for the just decision of the case. The mere fact that the trial has commenced does not bar the exercise of such power. The trial court's rejection of the recall application solely on the ground of commencement of trial was patently illegal and resulted in failure of justice.

Judgment Excerpts

Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide power on the court to summon or recall any witness at any stage if his evidence appears essential for the just decision of the case. The mere fact that trial has commenced does not bar the exercise of such power.

Procedural History

The trial court (LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore) passed the impugned order on 20.07.2024 in Spl.C. No.828/2018 rejecting the prosecution's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The State filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka, which was heard and reserved on 06.08.2024 and pronounced on 28.08.2024.