The Karnataka High Court recently emphasized that parties in a criminal trial cannot request the recall of a witness solely due to a change in legal representation.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna clarified that any application for witness recall must provide specific reasons for re-examining a witness who has already testified.
According to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now replaced by the BNSS), such applications can only be granted on a case-by-case basis, contingent upon whether failing to recall the witness would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The Court also stated that recalling witnesses should not be allowed late in the trial process.
"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 this observation while upholding a trial court's decision to deny an application for recalling a witness in a 2017 cheque bouncing case. The witness in question was an employee of the company that had lodged the complaint.
The complaint was against two entities and their representatives, who were accused of issuing a bad cheque to settle advance payments for incomplete roadwork. The witness had already been cross-examined twice by the defense counsel—once in 2019 and again in 2021.
In January 2024, the accused filed an application to recall this witness after their new lawyer identified gaps in the previous cross-examination, which had been conducted by the earlier defense counsel who passed away due to illness in 2023.
Despite this, the trial court rejected the application, prompting the accused to challenge the decision in the High Court through a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. However, the High Court was not convinced to grant the request, noting that the petitioners had already been given two opportunities to cross-examine the witness. Consequently, the High Court upheld the trial court's ruling and directed that the proceedings be concluded 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.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy