#CrPC 311

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an accused must be allowed to produce bank statements under CrPC 91 and recall the complainant under CrPC 311 to challenge the statutory presumption of debt under Section 138 of the NI Act. This ensures procedural fairness and prevents mechanical application of presumptions that undermine the right to a full defense.

Bombay High Court sets aside a trial court order summoning a prosecution witness under CrPC Section 311 without hearing the accused, ruling that natural justice demands prior opportunity of hearing. The judgment reinforces that even at the summoning stage, ex-parte orders violate fair trial principles and are liable to be quashed.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that re-examination of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC cannot be granted solely due to a witness later being arrayed as an accused. Judicial discretion must be exercised based on new facts or material prejudice, not procedural changes alone, to prevent trial delays.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that Section 311 CrPC cannot be used as a backdoor to remedy gross prosecutorial neglect after a 15-year delay in adding witnesses. This reinforces that procedural fairness trumps convenience, setting a critical precedent for accused persons facing belated, unexplained evidentiary expansions in long-pending criminal trials.

The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that Section 311 CrPC cannot be invoked to compensate for a defense counsel’s failure to ask critical questions during cross-examination. The provision is meant to aid truth discovery, not remedy procedural lapses, reinforcing judicial discretion must serve justice, not convenience.