Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 615 (CAL)

Mani Majumdar v. State of West Bengal

2018-08-28

SHIVAKANT PRASAD

body2018
JUDGMENT : SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18th May, 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Special Case No. 2 of 2015, arising out of Mogia Police Station Case No. 316 of 2014 dated 20.08.2014 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, rejecting thereby the prayer of the Public Prosecutor in-charge to recall the prosecution witness PW 1, the petitioner has preferred this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner’s case is that he runs a business unit under the name and style of “Shyama Ma Moulders” who approached the opposite party no. 2 the then Manager of Allahabad Bank, Adisaptagarm Branch, Hooghly in 2014 and applied for the loan under the Government Scheme “PMEGP” but the said Manager demanded some illegal gratification for sanction of the aforesaid loan. In order to get the loan the petitioner paid a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- of 50 numbers of 500 denominations of old currency on 20.8.2014 but the Manager declined to sanction the loan. So, the petitioner lodged a written complaint against the opposite party no. 2 on 20.8.2014 and Mogra Police Station Case No. 316 of 2014 dated 20.8.2014 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered for investigation. 3. It is submitted that while in police custody, pursuant to the statement of opposite party no. 2, police seized documents during investigation and on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted Charge-sheet being C.S. No. 73 of 2015 dated 20.3.2015 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the opposite party no. 2. Charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the opposite party no. 2 on 01.12.2015 to which he abjured his guilt and claimed a trial. During trial, the petitioner was examined and cross-examined in full on 02.08.2016. 4. Mr. Tapash Kumar Ghosh learned Advocate for the petitioner alleged that Mr. Nazibul Islam, Public Prosecutor did not perform his duty as he was gained over by the opposite party no. 2 on 01.12.2015 to which he abjured his guilt and claimed a trial. During trial, the petitioner was examined and cross-examined in full on 02.08.2016. 4. Mr. Tapash Kumar Ghosh learned Advocate for the petitioner alleged that Mr. Nazibul Islam, Public Prosecutor did not perform his duty as he was gained over by the opposite party no. 2 as it is evident from the examination in chief of the petitioner whereas the petitioner wanted to disclose the facts of the prosecution case through his evidence in chief but the said Pubic Prosecutor did not allow him to utter a single word and defence Advocate was given advantage to complete the cross-examination of PW 1 as if nothing remained in the prosecution case and since no witness was available on and from 02.9.2016 to 14.12.2016, the case was adjourned to the next date on 15.12.2016 but the Public Prosecutor was absent due to his serious illness. Thereafter, Mr. Bhaskar Banerjee was engaged as Public Prosecutor in charge to conduct the trial on behalf of the prosecution and the next date was fixed on 21.01.2017 for recording evidence of CSW Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 but Mr. Banerjee also failed to appear and the case was fixed on 22.02.2017. On request of the petitioner, Mr. Banerjee filed an application for recall of PW 1 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 22.02.2017 but on 23.02.2017, when the said petition was taken up for hearing, he did not attend the hearing inspite of repeated requests of the petitioner, though he had attended other courts to conduct cases. It was brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court by learned defence lawyer and after hearing him, the Trial Judge fixed the next date on 17.4.2017 for order. 5. Mr. Ghosh argued that as a matter of fact due to lack of sincerity, honesty and professional sanctity, learned Public Prosecutor in charge practically allowed the petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be rejected on 18.5.2017 by the learned Trial Judge as reflected from the order impugned. 6. Then the petitioner requested Mr. Banerjee to challenge the said order by filing a revisional application but he assured that the same has been filed in High Court, Calcutta. 6. Then the petitioner requested Mr. Banerjee to challenge the said order by filing a revisional application but he assured that the same has been filed in High Court, Calcutta. As a result, the next date was fixed for evidence of the prosecution witnesses on 23.3.2018 and nothing fruitful came out as the petitioner could not adduce complete evidence in-chief before the Trial Court due to unholy nexus between the learned Public Prosecutor-in-charge and the accused person. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a written prayer on 12.3.2018 before the learned Legal Remembrancer, West Bengal and the District Magistrate, Hooghly for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case on behalf of the prosecution properly. 8. Mr. Ghosh further argued that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider that the petitioner would suffer if he is prevented from disclosing complete fact because there was no wilful laches and negligence on the part of the petitioner to adduce the evidence. 9. It is submitted that the justice would be sub-served if prosecution is given another chance to examine the PW 1 in chief by recalling his evidence as earlier recorded on 02.8.2016 and only thereafter other prosecution witnesses would be examined. 10. It is pointed out by Mr. Ghosh that while rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. learned Trial Judge was wrong on holding that the prosecution must specify the questions which are required to be put to the witness and ought to have taken liberal view. 11. In rebuttal, Mr. S. P. Lahiri learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 2 relied on the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ratanlal Vs. Prahlad Jat and Ors. reported in AIR 2017 SC 5006 : (2017) 9 SCC 340 to argue that the prayer made by the petitioner for recall of the PW 1 cannot be considered at a distant point of time without any proper explanation for doing so. Prahlad Jat and Ors. reported in AIR 2017 SC 5006 : (2017) 9 SCC 340 to argue that the prayer made by the petitioner for recall of the PW 1 cannot be considered at a distant point of time without any proper explanation for doing so. In the cited decision it emerges that the order of Sessions Judge holding that the charges had already been framed under Sections 302, 201, 342, 120B of Code, 1860 against the accused persons, application under Section 311 of Code, 1973 on behalf of the applicants were not liable to be admitted and dismissed the same but the said order was set aside by the High Court but the Hon’ble Supreme Court restored the order of the Sessions Judge by reversing the order of the High Court on the finding that prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined at length during the specified period wherein they supported the prosecution story. The Sessions Judge had recorded a finding that they were not under any pressure while recording their evidence. It was observed that after a passage of 14 months they have filed the application for their re-examination on the ground that the statements made by them earlier were under pressure without assigning any reasons for the delay in making application. 12. It is settled position that to punish an offender in the event of commission of an offence is to sub serve a social need. Society cannot afford to have a criminal escape his liability since that would bring about a state of social pollution which is neither desired nor warranted. 13. In cited decision reference of case in Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2011) 8 SCC 136 was made wherein the concept underlying the provision of Section 311 of the Code was considered in the following lines at paragraph 15 - “15.Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the Court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said Section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the Court and not arbitrarily or capriciously”. Reference is also made in case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr. Vs. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the Court and not arbitrarily or capriciously”. Reference is also made in case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in AIR (2006) 3 SCC 374 wherein it has been held that— “The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The Section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the Court to summon a witness under the Section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The Section is a general Section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to 16 issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code”. In State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr., (2016) 2 SCC 402 it was held thus:- “.... Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary “for ensuring fair trial” is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the Court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. Mere observation that recall was necessary “for ensuring fair trial” is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the Court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including all called for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in the 17 trial. Having regard to these considerations, there is no ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined”. 14. The principle of law which emerged from the above cited decisions is that the delay in filing the application is one of the important factors which has to be explained in the application. It is not a case where is the strict sense the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be invoked. 15. In this case Mr. A. P. Lahiri learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 2 has invited my attention to an order dated 06.9.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 102220 of 2014 wherefrom it is reflected that the learned counsel for the prosecution had submitted before the Sessions Judge that the misunderstanding between the parties had been dissolved out of court and the present opposite party no. 2 was admitted on bail. Mr. Lahiri further advert my attention to the evidence of PW 1 to argue that the PW 1 has been examined and cross-examined at length. It appears that PW 1 is proprietor of “Ma Moulders” and accused opposite party no. 2 was Manager of Allahabad Bank, Adisapta Branch. According to PW 1, he has approached him on several occasions but he declined to sanction the loan so he lodged an FIR duly signed by him and drafted by one Joy Majumder, his co-villager and after the same was drafted he put the signature after reading the same and proved as an Exbt.-1. Therefore, the FIR finds corroboration by its maker. Therefore, the FIR finds corroboration by its maker. However, it transpires from his cross-examination that on 30.3.2014 loan was provisionally sanctioned and finally sanctioned on 21.7.2014 and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was deposited in his account by the Bank. PW 1 has admitted during cross-examination that initially a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was sanctioned and thereafter, Rs. 5,00,000/-was sanctioned and cheques of both the amount were given to Raj Engineering Works to deliver machineries to him. PW1 further deposed admitting the fact that a sum of Rs. 11,41,000/- was sanctioned towards term loan and Rs. 11,86,000/- as working capital with an agreement that PW 1 has to pay the amount in 60 EMIs of Rs. 35,000/- each with further agreement that a subsidy of Rs. 8,57,000/- would be provided and he has started repaying the loan amount as told by the accused, the opposite party no. 2. I find that the petitioner deposed with the admitted facts on 02.8.2016 when he was not under any external pressure whereas the application was filed under Section 311 of the Code on 22.02.2017 by the learned Public Prosecutor in charge to recall PW 1 i.e. after 6 months 20 days. While turning down the prayer for recall by the prosecution, the learned Trial Judge has concluded that the purpose of re-examination of witness is to explain matters which have been brought down in cross-examination. If the Public Prosecutor feels that certain answers require more elucidation from the witness, he has the freedom and the right to put such questions as he deems necessary for that purpose and even if new matters are required to be elicited from the witness he can do so and in that case only requirement is to secure permission of the Court although Section 138 of Evidence Act empowers the party who cause the witness to introduce new matters during cross-examination with the permission of the Court, recall of a witness cannot be permitted on the ground that there was change of counsel. 16. The petition so made before the Trial Court was bereft of explanation for recall as prayed by the prosecution and I find that the learned Trial Court has rightly concluded in his finding that there is no legal requirement to recall of the witness. 16. The petition so made before the Trial Court was bereft of explanation for recall as prayed by the prosecution and I find that the learned Trial Court has rightly concluded in his finding that there is no legal requirement to recall of the witness. The allegation in this revisional application levelled against the conducting Public Prosecutor in Charge has not been substantiated by the petitioner in the given facts of the case since the petitioner was not under any external pressure who deposed in unequivocal term during cross-examination that the loan was sanctioned in his favour and the amount of the loan was credited to his account for purchase of the machineries. Since the application under Section 311 of the Code was filed by the Public Prosecutor in Charge for recall of the PW 1, the conduct of the Public Prosecutor cannot be faulted with in order to take a ground in this revisional application. The order impugned as it reflects therefrom that the learned P.P. in-Charge and learned Advocate for the accused were heard at length. So, it cannot be said that learned P.P. in-Charge allowed the application to be rejected by absenting from the Court and by engaging himself in other Courts on the day of hearing. The subsequent dates for evidence of CSW 2, 3, 4 and 5 were scheduled by the Trial Judge but Mr. Bhaskar Banerjee newly appointed P.P. in-Charge addressed the Court on 15.12.2016 that C.D. was not handed over to him by erstwhile P.P. in-Charge namely Nazibul Islam, since deceased. 17. The Order-sheet revealed that the sole accused O.P. no. 2 was dancing attendance before the Trial Court on all dates and Mr. Banerjee, P.P. in-Charge had filed application for recall on 22.02.2017 but on the subsequent date on 23.3.2017 he was absent due to his illness. However, on the adjourned date on 18.5.2017 he was present and the application was heard upon his submission. Subsequently, the P.P. in-Charge filed petition for time for evidence on the ground of appeal pending before the higher forum against the order impugned but the learned Judge on 14.12.2017 was pleased to fix on 12.01.2018 for evidence of CS witness nos. 2 and 3. By such conduct of the prosecution in my view, the defence is prejudiced inasmuch as the PW 1 had deposed admitting the facts during cross-examination without any pressure whatsoever from any corner. 2 and 3. By such conduct of the prosecution in my view, the defence is prejudiced inasmuch as the PW 1 had deposed admitting the facts during cross-examination without any pressure whatsoever from any corner. 18. The photocopy of the complaint would reveal that prima facie the allegation is serious against the accused, opposite party no. 2 for having solicited illegal gratification of substantial sum of money seized from his prosecution. The FIR under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 was registered against him. Such allegation can be substantiated by the prosecution during trial by proving as to whether substantial amount of bribe was actually received by the opposite party no. 2 and was recovered from his possession. 19. Since that PW 1 was cross-examined at length and for the reasons of unsatisfactory explanation as required for recall of witness in respect of the delay in making the application, the learned Judge was right in rejecting the application. It cannot be said that PW 1 was won over by the prosecution or by the defence at that juncture. 20. Mr. Lahiri also relied on a decision in case of AG Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and Ors. reported in (2016)2 SCC 402 : AIR 2015 SC 3501 which is the question for consideration was as to whether the witness can be recalled at the stage when statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, on the score that the defence counsel was not competent and had not effectively cross-examined the witnesses. The cited decision is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case as discussed above. 21. It is true that Section 311 of the Code as well as Section 138 of the Evidence Act provides for recall of the witness and deals with power of the Court to summon material witness, or examine person present at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code, even to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court has set out the following principles to be borne in mind by a Court which are reproduced hereunder for profitable consideration of the case in the following paragraphs— “17.1. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court has set out the following principles to be borne in mind by a Court which are reproduced hereunder for profitable consideration of the case in the following paragraphs— “17.1. Whether the court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the court for a just decision of a case? 17.2. The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive and speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated. 17.3. If evidence of any witness appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person. 17.4. The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case. 17.5. The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 17.6. The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. 17.7. The court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. 17.8. The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision. 17.9. The court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered. 17.10. Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safeguard, while exercising the discretion. 17.9. The court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered. 17.10. Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safeguard, while exercising the discretion. The court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. 17.11. The court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results. 17.12. The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party. 17.13. The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party. 17.14. The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. 23. In AG vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav (supra) while summing of the reasons the Hon’ble Apex Court gave following guidelines— (i) The trial court and the High Court held that the accused had appointed counsel of his choice. He was facing trial in other cases also. 23. In AG vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav (supra) while summing of the reasons the Hon’ble Apex Court gave following guidelines— (i) The trial court and the High Court held that the accused had appointed counsel of his choice. He was facing trial in other cases also. The earlier counsel were given due opportunity and had duly conducted cross- examination. They were under no handicap; (ii) No finding could be recorded that the counsel appointed by the accused were incompetent particularly at back of such counsel; (iii) Expeditious trial in a heinous offence as is alleged in the present case is in the interests of justice; (iv) The trial Court as well as the High Court rejected the reasons for recall of the witnesses; (v) The Court has to keep in mind not only the need for giving fair opportunity to the accused but also the need for ensuring that the victim of the crime is not unduly harassed; (vi) Mere fact that the accused was in custody and that he will suffer by the delay could be no consideration for allowing recall of witnesses, particularly at the fag end of the trial; (vii) Mere change of counsel cannot be ground to recall the witnesses; (viii) There is no basis for holding that any prejudice will be caused to the accused unless the witnesses are recalled; (ix) The High Court has not rejected the reasons given by the trial court nor given any justification for permitting recall of the witnesses except for making general observations that recall was necessary for ensuring fair trial. This observation is contrary to the reasoning of the High Court in dealing with the grounds for recall, i.e., denial of fair opportunity on account of incompetence of earlier counsel or on account of expeditious proceedings; (x) There is neither any patent error in the approach adopted by the trial court rejecting the prayer for recall nor any clear injustice if such prayer is not granted. 24. It is settled law that under Section 311 Cr.P.C. since the power is wide it’s exercise has to be done with circumspection. It added that the exercise of this power cannot be untrammelled and arbitrary but must be only guided by the object of arriving at a just decision of the case. It should not cause prejudice to the accused. It should not permit the prosecution to fill-up the lacuna. It added that the exercise of this power cannot be untrammelled and arbitrary but must be only guided by the object of arriving at a just decision of the case. It should not cause prejudice to the accused. It should not permit the prosecution to fill-up the lacuna. Whether recall of a witness is for filling-up of a lacuna or it is for just decision of a case depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Section 311 of the Code is not meant for putting the accused in a disadvantageous position. It should be borne in mind that the aid of the section should be invoked only with the object of discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such facts for a just decision of the case and it must be used judicially and not capriciously or arbitrarily because any improper or capricious exercise of the power may lead to undesirable results. 25. In Raja Ram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another, (2013)14 SCC 461 , it has been held that power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon any person or witness or examine any person already examined can be exercised at any stage provided the same is required for just decision of the case. It may be profitable to take note of the following paras of the judgment— "14. A conspicuous reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. would show that widest of the powers have been invested with the Courts when it comes to the question of summoning a witness or to recall or re-examine any witness already examined. A reading of the provision shows that the expression "any" has been used as a pre-fix to "court", "inquiry", "trial", "other proceeding", "person as a witness", "person in attendance though not summoned as a witness", and "person already examined". By using the said expression "any" as a pre-fix to the various expressions mentioned above, it is ultimately stated that all that was required to be satisfied by the Court was only in relation to such evidence that appears to the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. Section 138 of the Evidence Act, prescribed the order of examination of a witness in the Court. Order of re-examination is also prescribed calling for such a witness so desired for such re-examination. Section 138 of the Evidence Act, prescribed the order of examination of a witness in the Court. Order of re-examination is also prescribed calling for such a witness so desired for such re-examination. Therefore, a reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 138 Evidence Act, insofar as it comes to the question of a criminal trial, the order of reexamination at the desire of any person under Section 138, will have to necessarily be in consonance with the prescription contained in Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, imperative that the invocation of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and its application in a particular case can be ordered by the Court, only by bearing in mind the object and purport of the said provision, namely, for achieving a just decision of the case as noted by us earlier. The power vested under the said provision is made available to any Court at any stage in any inquiry or trial or other proceeding initiated under the Code for the purpose of summoning any person as a witness or for examining any person in attendance, even though not summoned as witness or to recall or re-examine any person already examined. Insofar as recalling and re-examination of any person already examined, the Court must necessarily consider and ensure that such recall and re-examination of any person, appears in the view of the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore, the paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose the essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained. To put it differently, while such a widest power is invested with the Court, it is needless to state that exercise of such power should be made judicially and also with extreme care and caution.” 26. It emerges from the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that for invocation of Section 311 of the Code and its application in a particular case can be ordered by the Court, only by bearing in mind the object and reasons for achieving a just decision of the case but it shall not be with a view to permit the prosecution to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution evidence and it should be with object to discover relevant facts. So the provision under Section 311 of the Code should necessary the questions to be put to the witness on recall. 27. Having regard to the principles laid down in the above cited decisions and judging the factual matrix of the case as discussed above when the petitioner has been examined and cross-examined at length and for the reason that no sufficient explanation for delay in filing application was given for the recall of PW 1 and no question enumerated in the petition under Section 311 of the Code, I am of the opinion and accordingly hold that the learned Trial Judge was right in rejecting the application bearing in mind the settled principle of law on that count. However, since the Court is empowered to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at any stage of the trial, the learned Trial Judge may allow the prosecution after the rest of the CS witnesses are examined and cross-examined in full, if for the ends of justice, such recourse is imperative by giving full opportunities to the prosecution and to the defence. 28. In the context above, this revisional application being CRR 615 of 2018 is decided and disposed of with the direction to the learned Trial Court to undertake the expeditious trial of the case for evidence of the rest of the prosecution witnesses preferably within six months from the date of communication of this judgment without granting any unnecessarily adjournment to any of the parties. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.