S.311 CrPC | Broad Wording Of Section Allowing "Any Court To Summon Witnesses At Any Stage" Of Proceedings, Should Not Be Restricted: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated the wide discretion a court has under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to ensure a just decision.In a judgment passed by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, the court emphasized that the broad wording of the section, allowing "any court" to summon witnesses "at any stage" of the proceedings, should not be...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated the wide discretion a court has under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to ensure a just decision.
In a judgment passed by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, the court emphasized that the broad wording of the section, allowing "any court" to summon witnesses "at any stage" of the proceedings, should not be restricted.
These observations came in a plea involving petitioner Farooq Ahmad Wani, accused of dishonouring a cheque in favour of Respondent Tariq Ahmad Khan. During the trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, Wani's lawyer opted not to present any defence evidence.
Later, Wani filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. requesting permission to summon witnesses to prove he had paid the cheque amount outside the court. The trial court rejected the application, citing Wani's lawyer's earlier decision and the time elapsed in the case. The revisional court upheld this decision.
Wani challenged these orders in the High Court. His lawyer argued that he had never authorized the initial decision not to present a defence.
Emphasising that Section 311's purpose is to unearth the truth and secure a just verdict by considering all relevant facts Justice Wani observed,
“The very usage of the expressions in the Section i.e. “any court” and “at any stage” clearly spells out that the section is expressed in widest possible terms and do not circumscribe or limit the discretion of the court in any way”.
However the court also added, “that widest power requires a corresponding caution and carefulness in exercise of such power with a further caveat to be exercised judicially and in furtherance of the cause of justice inasmuch as not to exercise the said power for filling up of lacunas in evidence”
Acknowledging the submission of the petitioner that he had never authorized the initial decision not to present a defense Justice held that the petitioner could not be held liable for a statement made by his lawyer without proper instruction.
Dealing with the other contention as to whether the application of the accused petitioner could have rejected by the trial court on the ground of the age of the case or the period of time having been consumed in trying the same the bench cited Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2019 and reiterated,
“.. the age of a case, by itself, cannot be a decisive of the matter when a prayer is made for examination of a material witness”
In light of these observations, the court allowed Wani's petition. The impugned orders were set aside, permitting him to present the witnesses mentioned in his application before the trial court on the next hearing date or a subsequent date fixed by the court.
Case Title: FAROOQ AHMAD WANI Vs TARIQ AHMAD KHAN
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 119
Mr. Aarif Javaid Khan, Advocate appeared for petitioner