Case Title: Madhusudan Shukla V. State Of U.P. And Another
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has observed that an application filed u/s 311 CrPC can’t be rejected just because there’s a delay in the conclusion of proceedings/trial.
The Court extensively discussed the scope of Section 311 by referring to various judicial precedents on the subject. In Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and another, it has been held that “A conspicuous reading of Section 311 Cr P C would show that widest of the powers have been invested with the courts when it comes to the question of summoning a witness or to recall or re-examine any witness already examined. A reading of the provision shows that the expression "any" has been used as a prefix to "court", "inquiry", "trial", "other proceeding", "person as a witness", "person in attendance though not summoned as a witness", and "person already examined". By using the said expression "any" as a prefix to the various expressions mentioned above, it is ultimately stated that all that was required to be satisfied by the court was only in relation to such evidence that appears to the court to be essential for the just decision of the case………”
Various principles/guidelines to be followed while dealing with an application filed u/s 311 CrPC have also been extensively laid down in the aforementioned precedent.
The Court further referred to Manju Devi V. State of Rajasthan wherein the principles enshrined in Rajaram Prasad (supra) were followed by the Apex Court and it was noted that an application under Section 311 Cr. P.C could not be rejected on the sole ground that the case had been pending for an inordinate amount of time.
Therefore, the Court, in the instant case while quashing the lower court’s order observed thus: "...trial Court appears to have adopted a hyper-technical view in rejecting the application, however, what it appears to have ignored is the purpose for which the salutary provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated. It has failed to adhere to the well-known adage that every trial is a voyage in which quest for truth is the goal. The trial court can summon any witness even if evidence of both sides is closed. What is required to be demonstrated is, evidence of such witness is essential to the just decision of the case."