The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that trial courts must not prematurely dismiss applications to summon defence witnesses on grounds of perceived irrelevance. In a significant ruling under the NDPS Act, the Court emphasized that the relevance of a witness must be assessed at the stage of evidence recording, not at the stage of summoning. This decision reinforces the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Fagalu Ram, aged approximately 76 years, is an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The prosecution alleges that while travelling on an RSRTC bus, the petitioner was found in possession of contraband after alighting from the bus. The exact location of the search - whether inside the bus or after disembarkation - is disputed. The petitioner seeks to examine the conductor of the RSRTC bus to establish whether he was indeed a passenger on that bus and whether the contraband was recovered before or after he left the vehicle.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was arrested on allegations of possessing contraband following a search conducted by police
- The prosecution’s case hinges on the assertion that the contraband was found after the petitioner alighted from the RSRTC bus
- The petitioner claims he was still on the bus when the search occurred
- The identity and testimony of the bus conductor are critical to verifying the sequence of events
- The petitioner filed an application seeking summoning of the conductor as a defence witness
Procedural History
- Date of Arrest: Not specified in judgment, but occurred during a routine check on an RSRTC bus
- Date of Filing Defence Application: After completion of prosecution evidence, prior to commencement of defence case
- 04.05.2026: Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s application to summon the bus conductor, holding the witness to be irrelevant
- 13.05.2026: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
- 13.05.2026: Matter heard and decided at admission stage with consent of both parties
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The bus conductor is a material witness whose testimony could establish whether the petitioner was on the bus, when the search occurred, and whether the contraband was recovered in the presence of the conductor. The denial of summoning violates the right to present a defence under Section 311 CrPC and Article 21.
Respondent’s Position: The conductor’s testimony is irrelevant because the prosecution’s case is based on recovery of contraband from the petitioner’s person after he alighted. The witness cannot alter the fact of possession.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Trial Court’s order dated 04.05.2026, and direct issuance of summons to the RSRTC bus conductor for examination as a defence witness.
The Legal Issue
Can a trial court reject an application under Section 311 CrPC to summon a defence witness solely on the ground that the witness’s testimony is irrelevant, without allowing the witness to be examined and the relevance to be determined through evidence?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Budha Ram Godara, relied on State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar and Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. to argue that Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon any person as a witness if their evidence appears essential to a just decision. He contended that the Trial Court erred in making a premature determination of relevance without hearing the witness. The conductor’s testimony could clarify whether the search occurred on the bus or after alighting - a fact central to the petitioner’s defence. Denial of this opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor, Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, argued that the prosecution’s case is based on recovery of contraband from the petitioner’s person after he left the bus. The conductor’s evidence, he submitted, cannot rebut the fact of possession and is therefore collateral. He cited K. S. R. Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh to assert that courts may reject frivolous or irrelevant applications under Section 311 CrPC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 311 CrPC, which grants discretionary power to summon any person as a witness if their evidence is deemed essential for a just decision. The Court held that the determination of relevance cannot be made at the stage of summoning. The Trial Court’s rejection of the application on the ground that the conductor’s evidence was irrelevant was an error of law.
"It is premature to give a finding that the said witness (bus conductor) has no relevance. The reason is that from the evidence of the conductor of the bus, it may be established as to whether the petitioner was travelling in his bus or not and the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner was caught with the contraband after he alighted from the said bus. There are so many possibilities from his evidence."
The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 311 CrPC is to ensure that no material evidence is withheld from the trial. The relevance of a witness is not to be judged on speculative grounds but must be tested through examination. The Trial Court’s order amounted to a pre-judgment of the defence case, which is impermissible. The Court further noted that the petitioner, being elderly and facing serious charges under the NDPS Act, is entitled to every reasonable opportunity to present his defence.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 04.05.2026 rejecting the application to summon the RSRTC bus conductor was quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to issue summons to the conductor without delay and fix a date for recording his evidence as a defence witness. The Court emphasized that the witness must be examined before the conclusion of the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Summoning Defence Witnesses Cannot Be Denied on Speculative Grounds
- Practitioners must file applications under Section 311 CrPC even if the witness’s relevance appears indirect
- Trial courts must not reject summoning applications based on assumptions about the witness’s potential testimony
- The burden is on the prosecution to show that an application is frivolous or vexatious, not on the defence to prove relevance in advance
Relevance Is Determined Through Evidence, Not Argument
- The Court’s ruling establishes that relevance under Section 311 CrPC is a question of fact to be resolved during examination, not at the application stage
- Defence counsel should cite State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar and this judgment to oppose premature rejections
- Any order rejecting a defence witness without allowing examination is liable to be set aside on appeal
NDPS Cases Require Extra Scrutiny of Defence Rights
- Given the severity of NDPS charges and the potential for procedural overreach, courts must be vigilant in safeguarding the accused’s right to present a defence
- Even minor discrepancies in the prosecution’s narrative - such as location of search - must be allowed to be tested through witness testimony
- This judgment reinforces that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 is non-negotiable, even in drug-related offences
