Section 311 CrPC – Mere Change Of Counsel Cannot Be A Ground To Recall Witnesses: Delhi HC
Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), focusing on the principle that a mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall witnesses, supported by relevant case laws:
Section 311 CrPC: Overview
Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 empowers a court to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined during the trial, if it appears necessary for the just decision of the case. This provision is intended to ensure that the court has all the relevant facts before it before delivering judgment.
Key Purpose:
To allow the court to summon fresh evidence or witnesses in the interest of justice.
To recall witnesses to clarify points or to correct earlier testimony.
Can Mere Change of Counsel Be a Ground to Recall Witnesses?
Short Answer:
No. The mere change of defense or prosecution counsel during trial is not a sufficient ground to recall or re-examine witnesses under Section 311 CrPC.
Reasoning:
Finality and Fair Trial:
Trials are conducted under strict procedural timelines to ensure fairness and efficiency. Allowing recall of witnesses merely due to change of counsel would lead to repeated delays, harassment to witnesses, and potential abuse of the process.
Counsel's Familiarity:
Every advocate must familiarize themselves with the case record and evidence already recorded. A change in counsel does not entitle the party to re-examine witnesses as a matter of right.
Discretion of the Court:
The power under Section 311 is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. It should not be used to allow re-opening of evidence just because a new lawyer wants to challenge previous testimonies.
Interest of Justice:
The court must be satisfied that recalling a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, not merely for the convenience of a new counsel.
Important Case Laws:
1. Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 720
Facts: The trial court allowed recall of witnesses on the application of the accused after change of counsel.
Observation: The Supreme Court held that the power under Section 311 CrPC should not be exercised merely because of change of counsel, as it would result in endless adjournments and delay.
Conclusion: Mere change of counsel is not a ground for recalling witnesses.
2. Dinesh Chandra Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1446
Observation: The Supreme Court emphasized that the recalling of witnesses is an extraordinary power and should be exercised only when it is absolutely necessary for justice.
Note: Recalling witnesses to allow a new counsel to cross-examine does not amount to necessity.
3. Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2001) 5 SCC 231
The Supreme Court reiterated that the court must not permit re-examination or recalling of witnesses just because of the change of counsel or to give a fresh opportunity to the party.
4. Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 2 SCC 596
It was held that the discretion under Section 311 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, and a change in counsel or defense team cannot be a reason to recall witnesses.
Summary:
| Point | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Section 311 CrPC | Allows court to summon or recall witnesses if necessary for justice. |
| Change of Counsel | Not a sufficient ground for recalling witnesses. |
| Court's Discretion | Must be exercised judiciously; recall only if justice demands it. |
| Delay and Harassment | Recalling witnesses due to change of counsel causes delay and harassment. |
| Case Laws | Ranjit Singh, Dinesh Chandra Pathak, Ram Kumar, Ramesh reinforce this view. |
Practical Takeaway for Advocates and Courts:
Advocates should be prepared to work with evidence already recorded.
Courts should refuse recall requests made solely on the ground of change of counsel.
Recall and re-examination should be reserved for genuine cases where new facts or clarifications are essential.
RELATED Blog
0 comments