Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 106 (ORI)

Tarachand Agarwal v. State of Orissa

2019-02-07

S.PUJAHARI

body2019
JUDGMENT : S. Pujahari, J. Heard Shri Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Niranjan Moharana, learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, who is an accused in G.R. Case No.13 of 2008, challenging the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna in G.R. Case No.13 of 2008 rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner to recall the P.W.2 who has examined, cross-examined and discharged on 04.07.2014. 3. It appears that the petitioner wants to ask certain questions to P.W.2 as to whether freezers which stated to have been supplied, belong to one Company or different Companies and the serial number appearing in Ext.38 relates to a single freezer or three different freezers. Since the aforesaid P.W.2 had not stated that his company has supplied the aforesaid freezers to the Accused-petitioner and P.W.2 was examined by the prosecution as the Investigating Agency taken assistance of the said P.W.2 to ascertain the capacity of the freezers held, the cross-examination of the said witness on recall to clarify the aforesaid is not to serve any purpose. It appears that the trial Court had also taken note of the fact that in view of the categorical answer of the P.W.2 about the storage and cooling capacity of the Air Conditioners of Sriram Air Conditioning Private Limited and also Usha International Limited and Sriram Air Conditioning Private Limited and Usha International Limited are separate Companies as has been brought out by the defence through evidence of P.W.2, the question desired to be asked is an afterthought and aimed at protracting the trial, holding the same the trial Court rejected the prayer made. 4. The power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. which is vested with the Court of wide amplitude and aim at doing justice to a party. The Court, therefore, at any stage of the enquiry of a criminal trial and in any other proceeding can recall a witness who has already been examined, cross-examined and discharged either for cross-examination or re-examine, but the criteria for the same is that the evidence of such witness, for which he/she is going to be recalled, is essential for just decision of the case. The object of the aforesaid provision is to unveil the truth or arrive at the truth through the evidence and decide the case justly. The entire object of the case is to do justice not only from the point view of the accused, but also for the prosecution and for an orderly society, the power, therefore, is required to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons with caution and circumspection and cannot be allowed as a matter of course. 5. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, when the case in hand is addressed, it appears to this Court that the trial Court making a detailed discussion held the recall of the said witness, i.e., P.W.2, is not essential for the just decision of the case but aimed to protract the trial. 6. On consideration of the aforesaid facts and submissions made and also the reasons given by the trial Court to reject the prayer made, this Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the said order of refusal to recall of P.W.2. Accordingly, this CRLMC stands dismissed.