The High Court of Karnataka recently reiterated that parties to a criminal trial cannot be allowed to recall a witness merely on the ground that their lawyer has changed [M/S Steel Rocks INC V/s M/S Bangalore Elevated].
Justice M Nagaprasanna explained that an application for witness recall must contain details on why a witness who has already been examined must be recalled.
Such an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC, now replaced by the BNSS) can be only be allowed on a case to case basis, depending on whether a failure of justice would ensue if the witness is not recalled, the Court said.
Recall of witnesses should not be permitted at the fag end of the trial, the Court added.
"Mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall the witness. The application must contain details as to why the witness is required to be recalled. Recalling of witnesses should not be permitted at the fag end of the trial. These are the broad principles laid down by the Apex Court," the High Court observed.
The Court made the observation while upholding a trial court's decision to reject an application for the recall of a witness in a 2017 cheque bouncing case.
The witness in question was an employee who used work in the company that had filed the cheque bouncing complaint.
The complaint was filed against two entities and their representatives (accused) who were accused of issuing a bad cheque to reimburse certain advance payments made for unfinished roadwork.
The witness had been cross-examined twice earlier by the defence counsel (lawyer for the accused), once in 2019 and once in 2021.
In January 2024, the accused filed an application to recall this witness, after their new lawyer noticed certain gaps in the cross examination by the earlier defence counsel. The new lawyer had been engaged by the accused after the earlier lawyer passed away due to illness in 2023.
The trial court, however, rejected this application, prompting the accused to challenging such rejection before the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC.
However, the High Court was not persuaded to allow their plea after noting that the petitioners (accused) have been given opportunity to cross-examine the witness not once but twice.
Therefore, the High Court rejected the plea and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within four months.
"Since the case is of 7 years vintage, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within an outlet limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order," the High Court ordered.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate KN. Karunashankar, while the respondents were represented by Advocate Sridhar Prabhu.
[Read Order]