#recall of witnesses

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that courts cannot routinely exercise inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to recall witnesses unless bona fide grounds or subsequent developments are demonstrated. This judgment reinforces judicial restraint in procedural matters, ensuring that recall applications are not misused to delay or derail civil proceedings.

Karnataka High Court rules that an accused's right to fair cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC outweighs dilatory tactics in cheque bounce cases, allowing witness recall even after multiple prior applications, but imposes costs to deter abuse. The judgment balances procedural fairness with judicial efficiency in economic offences.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that once the defence has been granted a full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and fails to avail it, recall under Section 348 BNSS cannot be invoked merely due to a change in counsel or amendment of charges. This reinforces the principle that procedural rights must be exercised timely to ensure fair trial integrity.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that trial courts retain discretion under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses even after evidence closure if essential for a just decision. This ruling underscores the primacy of natural justice over procedural finality, particularly in cheque dishonour cases where critical evidence may emerge late.

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.