Section 311 CrPC Doesn't Permit Indefinite Delay Where Witnesses Remain Unavailable: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Closure Of Evidence

The Rajasthan High Court has held that when despite all efforts, presence of witnesses summoned under Section 311 CrPC could not be secured, trial court was justified in closing such evidence, thereby preventing efforts that would have resulted in prolonging the trial indefinitely. The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu further held that a criminal trial is conducted by the State through public prosecutor, and the role of the victim/informant was limited to assisting the public prosecutor and could not be extended to claiming independent or overriding right to conduct or control the prosecution. The Court was hearing a petition filed against the order of the trial court that closed the evidence of two witnesses when, despite all efforts, their presence could not be secured. The petition was filed by an informant in relation to a matter pertaining to alleged forged mark-sheet of 10th standard submitted by the respondent during his candidature of Zila Parishad in 2015. During the proceedings, after the prosecution evidence was concluded, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 CrPC, for summoning two witnesses, contending that their statements were necessary for adjudication of the matter. The trial court adopted all possible measures to secure the presence of these witnesses, but despite serving arrest warrants two times, the presence could not be secured, after which their evidence was closed. This order was challenged before the Court by the petitioner. It was contended that once the application under Section 311 was allowed, trial court should not have closed the evidence. On the contrary, it was argued by the Advocate General that since the matter pertained to MP/MLA, the trial was being monitored as per the Supreme Court directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India in pursuant to which several directions were issued for expeditious disposal of such pending trials. Further, it was submitted that the role of a victim or informant was limited to assisting the public prosecutors without having any indefeasible right to conduct or control the prosecution or seeking indefinite continuation of the proceedings for summoning witnesses. After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the matter was pending since 2019 and was against the member of a legislative assembly. In view of the Supreme Court decision and the directions for expeditious disposal of such cases within 6 months, the Court held that the present matter could not be decided within the prescribed timeline. “Although, there were specific directions by the Hon'ble High Court for deciding the present case withing a period of six months, but nevertheless the learned trial court, in the interest of justice and fair trial, granted several opportunities to the prosecution to produce the witnesses and issued bailable as well as arrest warrants, but despite that the witnesses were not traceable. Efforts were also made to record the evidence through video conferencing, but the witnesses in fact never intended to appear.”In this background, it was held that the trial court had no option but to close the evidence. It was opined that it was the Court's duty to ensure fair trial that included right to speedy trial of the accused. Hence, a criminal trial could not be allowed to remain pending for infinite time for securing presence of witnesses despite repeated efforts. It was observed that such unending efforts could not be continued at the cost of keeping trial pending for an indefinite period. The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation which held that power under Section 311 had to be exercised judiciously and could not be invoked in a manner that resulted in undue delay in the trial. The Court further held that petitioner could not be permitted to seek indefinite continuation of proceedings as that would be contrary to the settled principles governing criminal trials. Accordingly, it was held that the order of the trial court did not suffer from any illegality, perversity or arbitrariness, and the petition was dismissed. Title: Chimna Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 150Click Here To Read/Download Order

Section 311 CrPC Doesn't Permit Indefinite Delay Where Witnesses Remain Unavailable: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Closure Of Evidence

Nupur Agrawal

Tags