The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2219 of 2025 Shishir @ Sisira Kumar Bahinipati ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Biswajit Nayak -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 03.07.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Petitioner assails order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kotagarh in G.R. Case No.269 of 2010. While exercising his power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 28.05.2025 under Annexure-5 to the present application. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that while the trial was on an application was filed on behalf of the Page 1 of 4. prosecution under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 137 of the Evidence Act under Annexure-3 to the application. He further contended that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) wanted to further examine the I.O., namely one Sudhansu Sekhar Pujari and wanted to exhibit certain documents which were seized by the I.O. He further submitted that although under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. any witness can be recalled by the learned trial Court at any stage of the investigation/ trial/ proceeding, however, the same does not include the power to direct the witness to furnish any document during such further examination. He further contended that the application under Annexure-3 is an incomplete one and necessary details have not been provided by the learned APP which would justify the exercise of the power by the learned trial Court to recall the witness under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order allowing to recall of the I.O., P.W.-14 is bad in law and accordingly it was prayed that the impugned order under Annexure-5 be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality while passing order dated 28.05.2025 under Annexure-5. He further submitted that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. confers a decision on the power of the trial Court to summon material witnesses or examine persons present at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding which also includes a person who has not been summoned as a witness and reexamine such persons who have already been examined. Thus the power conferred under the learned trial Court by virtue of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature. Further, referring to the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 learned counsel for the State contended that on an application being filed by the learned APP, the trial Court, on being Page 2 of 4. satisfied, passed an order directing recall of I.O. who is a material witness to the trial. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in exercising its discretionary power, therefore, the impugned order under Annexure-5 does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. Accordingly, the application filed by the Petitioner, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having regard the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, further on an analysis of the legal provision, this Court is of the view that the power conferred on the trial Court by virtue of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is a discretionary power and the same can be exercised at any stage of the inquiry/ trial. Further, in exercise of such power, any person can be summoned for his reexamination irrespective of the fact as to whether he was earlier examined or not. The only rider to Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is that such recall of a witness must appear to be essential for a just decision of the case. At this juncture, this Court would like to observe that the learned trial Court, at whose disposal the records and evidences in the case are present, is in the best position to access as to whether the appearance of the person is necessary for a just decision of the case. Thus, there is no doubt that such power is conferred on the trial Court is discretionary. As such, unless there is a dispute with regard to arbitrary exercise of the statutory power, this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. must not interfere with such order. 7. So far as the apprehension of the learned counsel for the Petitioner with regard to introduction of new documents is Page 3 of 4. concerned, this Court found that since the leaned trial Court is vested with the power to recall any witness at any stage of the trial, it is well within the purview of the trial Court to allow any document to be introduced in course of the trial. More so when the evidence from the prosecution side is not over. However, in such eventuality, the accused must have given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witness who is introducing any documentary evidence on his recall. Moreover, such introduction of new documents shall be subject to the other provisions of the Cr.P.C. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the present application is being disposed of by directing the learned trial Court to fix a date on which the P.W.- 14, i.e., the I.O. shall be recalled and his examination/ cross- examination shall be concluded on a single day. However, while doing so, the learned trial Court shall provide an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the P.W.-14. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Jul-2025 19:35:38 Page 4 of 4.