CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtSingle Bench

Saroj Kumar Parida vs Republic of India

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 24 November 2006 · Citation: (2006) 11 SC CK 0024

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.N. Biswal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 311
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2560 of 2006
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 377 words

R.N. Biswal, J.—Heard Mr. S.K. Sahoo, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. SK Padhi, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the C.B.I.

2.

The Petitioner is facing trial in T.R. Case No. 5 of 2003 before the Special Judge, Bhaubneswar. He field a petition u/s 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 31.10.2006 to recall P.W.3 who had already been examined on 16.3.2006 for further cross-examination, on the ground that some important documents could not be confronted to him during his earlier examination. The petition was rejected on 2.11.2006 on the ground that the belated plea of the defence appeared to be an after thought and allowing such application would not only cause prejudice to the prosecution, but also other witnesses might be required to be recalled. This order is under challenge in this CRLMC.

3.

As per Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the discretion of the Trial Court to recall any witness at any stage, but if further examination/cross-examination of a witness appears to be essential to the just decision of a case, it is the duty of the Court to recall the said witness for further examination/cross-examination. In the present case as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner had lodged a report against P.W.3 before the I.I.C. of Sector-7 Police Station, Rourkela on 3.9.2002 which was entered in the Station Diary on the very day. Prima facie it does not appear that this entry was made subsequent to the raid of the house of the accused-Petitioner. So, in my view the Petitioner should be given a chance to further cross-examine P.W.3 in connection with the said Station Diary entry and the allegation made in the written report for just decision of the case.

4.

Accordingly the impugned Order Dated 2.11.2006 is hereby quashed and the Crl. MC is allowed. It is made clear that no question beyong the questionnaire given in the petition u/s 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure shall be allowed to be put to P.W.3. Further it is clarified that I do not express any opinion regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the Station Diary entry or the other documents.

5.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

Petition allowed