Bhawani Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order of the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Javad dated 21.2.2019, whereby the direction to summon additional witnesses under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial court has committed an error in summoning the additional witnesses in order to fill the lacuna. He further submits that even the names of the witnesses to be summoned are not mentioned in the order and no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the order.

As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner is facing trial in S.T. No.41/2017 for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. After recording the evidence of the witnesses and examining the record, the trial court had found that certain relevant witnesses were left out for examination by the prosecution and one of the witness was not asked the relevant question, hence the trial court by the impugned order has directed summoning of the witnesses under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order reveals that the prosecution had failed to examine Piyush Charls who had recorded the memorandum Ex.P/36 & P/37, Excise Sub Inspector, Circle Malhargarh from whom the poppy husk stock register was seized, the police officer O.K. Singh who had recorded the memorandum Ex.P/187, 188 & 189, Jagdish and Ashok the panch witnesses and Vinod and Manoj the independent witnesses of memorandum Ex.P/40 and Sanjay the Panch witness of seizure proceedings, as also the agriculturist who had provided the poppy husk to Jagdish. The trial Court has also noted that the independent witness Mahesh Damami was not asked any question. In the aforesaid circumstances trial court suo motu has directed to summon these witnesses under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order of the trial court reveals that the witnesses have been summoned with a view to just decision of the case and not to fill up the lacuna. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India and another reported in 1991 Supp(1) SCC 271 while considering the scope of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has held that:-

"7. Section 540 was found in Chapter XLVI of the old Code of 1898 under the heading 'Miscellaneous'. But the present corresponding Section 311 of the new Code is found among other sections in Chapter XXIV under the heading 'General Provisions as to Enquiries and Trials'. Section 311 is an almost verbatim reproduction of Section 540 of the old Code except for the insertion of the words 'to be' before the word "essential" occurring in the old Section. This section is manifestly in two parts. Whereas the word 'used' in the first part is 'may' the word used in the second part is 'shall'. In consequence, the first part which is permissive gives purely discretionary authority to the Criminal Code and enables it 'at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceedings' under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely, (1) to summon any person as a witness, or (2) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or (3) to recall and re-examine any person already examined.

The second part which is mandatory imposes an obligation on the Court- (1) to summon and examine, or (2) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.

The very usage of the words such as 'any court', 'at any stage', or 'of any enquiry, trial or other proceedings', 'any person' and 'any such person' clearly spells out that this section is expressed in the widest possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. However, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary power should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the Section does not allow for any discretion but it binds and compels the Court to take any of the aforementioned two steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case.

The next important question is whether Section 540 gives the court carte-blanche drawing no underlying principle in the exercise of the extra-ordinary power and whether the said Section is unguided, uncontrolled and uncanalised. Though Section 540 (Section 311 of the new Code) is, in the widest possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with regard to the stage at which the powers of the court should be exercised, or with regard to the manner in which they should be exercised, that power is circumscribed by the principle that underlines Section 540, namely, evidence to be obtained should appear to the court essential to a just decision of the case by getting at the truth by all lawful means. Therefore, it should be borne in mind that the aid of the section should be invoked only with the object of discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such facts for a just decision of the case and it must be used judicially and not capriciously or arbitrarily because any improper or capricious exercise of the power may lead to undesirable results. Further it is incumbent that due care should be taken by the court while exercising the power under this section and it should not be used for filling up the lacuna left by the prosecution or by the defence or to the disadvantage of the accused or the cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused or to give an unfair advantage to the rival side and further the additional evidence should not be received as a disguise for a retrial or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties.

At the risk of repetition it may be said that Section 540 allows the court to invoke its inherent power at any stage, as long as the court retains seisin of the criminal proceeding, without qualifying any limitation or prohibition. Needless to say that an enquiry or trial in a criminal proceeding comes to an end or reaches its finality when the order or judgment is pronounced and until then the court has power to use this section ..................... *** *** ***

The principle of law that emerges from the views expressed by this Court in the above decisions is that the Criminal Court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair-play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command the examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."

Similarly in the matter of Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell through its Officer in Charge, Delhi reported in (1999) 6 SCC 110 it has been held that:-

"7. It is a common experience in criminal Courts that defence counsel would raise objections whenever Courts exercise powers under Section 311 of the Code or under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 by saying that the Court could not 'fill the lacuna in the prosecution case'. A lacuna in the prosecution is not to be equated with the fallout of an oversight committed by a public prosecutor during trial, either in producting relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. The adage 'to err is human' is the recognition of the possibility of making mistakes to which humans are prone. A corollary of any such laches or mistakes during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as the lacuna which a Court cannot fill up.

Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an over sight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the criminal Court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better.

We cannot therefore accept the contention of the appellant as a legal proposition that the Court cannot exercise power of resummoning any witness if once that power was exercised, nor can the power be whittled down merely on the ground that prosecution discovered laches only when the defence highlighted them during final arguments. The power of the Court is plenary to summon or even recall any witness at any stage of the case if the Court considers it necessary for a just decision. The steps which the trial Court permitted in this case for re-summoning certain witnesses cannot therefore be spurned down or frowned at."

In the matter of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 3114 it has been held that:-

"39.The principles of rule of law and due process are closely linked with human rights protection. Such rights can be protected effectively when a citizen has recourse to the Courts of law. It has to be unmistakably understood that a trial which is primarily aimed at ascertaining truth has to be fair to all concerned. There can be no analytical, all comprehensive or exhaustive definition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. whether something that was done or said either before or at the trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has resulted. It will be not correct to say that it is only the accused who must be fairly dealt with. That would be turning Nelson's eyes to the needs of the society at large and the victims or their family members and relatives. Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give false evidence that also would not result in a fair trial. The failure to hear material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial.

A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the case and its purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an issue as a fact or relevant facts which may lead to the discovery of the fact issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their pleadings; the controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the object is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. The proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial and not by an isolated scrutiny.

Failure to accord fair hearing either to the accused or the prosecution violates even minimum standards of due process of law. It is inherent in the concept of due process of law, that condemnation should be rendered only after the trial in which the hearing is a real one, not sham or a mere farce and presence. Since the fair hearing requires an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be vitiated and violated by an overhasty stage-managed, tailored and partisan trial.

The fair trial for a criminal offence consists not only in technical observance of the frame and forms of law, but also in recognition and just application of its principles in substance, to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage of justice.

The Courts have to take a participatory role in a trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confer vast and wide powers on Presiding Officers of Court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence collecting process. They have to monitor proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss in some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively so that ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. This becomes more necessary where the Court has reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the prosecutor is not acting in the requisite manner. The Court cannot afford to be wishfully or pretend to be blissfully ignorant or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and Courts could not also play into the hands to such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness."

Similarly in the matter of Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2011) 8 SCC 136 it has been laid down that:-

"14. There is no manner of doubt that the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a vast one. This power can be exercised at any stage of the trial. Such a power should be exercised provided the evidence which may be tendered by a witness is germane to the issue involved, or if proper evidence is not adduced or relevant material is not brought on record due to any inadvertence. It hardly needs to be emphasised that power under Section 311 should be exercised for the just decision of the case. The wide discretion conferred on the court to summon a witness must be exercised judicially, as wider the power, the greater is the necessity for application of the judicial mind. Whether to exercise the power or not would largely depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As is provided in the section, power to summon any person as a witness can be exercised if the court forms an opinion that the examination of such a witness is essential for the just decision of the case."

In the matter of Natasha Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that:-

"8. Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present at "any stage" of "any enquiry", or "trial", or "any other proceedings" under the Cr.P.C., or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, the Cr.P.C. has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the court in this context is very wide, and in exercise of the same, it may summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even suo motu if no such application has been filed by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.

The scope and object of the provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as 'any Court', 'at any stage", or 'or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings', 'any person' and 'any such person' clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.

Having regard to the aforesaid factual and legal position, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error in invoking the provisions of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and summoning the witnesses for evidence which was required for just and proper decision in the case. Hence no merit is found in the present M.Cr.C., which is accordingly dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.