Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 470 (GAU)

Suraj Singh S/O- Bhaarat Singh v. State of Assam

2025-03-18

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

body2025
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1. Suraj Singh and 2.Dhiraj Singh, who are the accused appearing in Special (NDPS) Case No. 107/2022 and facing trial for charges under Section 22(c)/25/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the petitioners’ prayer to recall the witnesses namely Rajesh Urang (PW-1), Pradip Koiri (PW-2) and Rajib Singha (PW-3). 3. It was mentioned by the learned Trial Court that in the petition under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) apart from mentioning the names of the three witnesses to be recalled for cross examination for a proper adjudication of the case, there was nothing more in the petition. It was also held by the learned Trial Court that in absence of any ground being mentioned in the petition, the aforementioned witnesses are not required to be recalled for adducing evidence for a just decision of the case. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam Mr. D.P. Goswami has raised objection against the petition and has stated that the petition under Section 311 of CrPC was vague. No grounds were mentioned assigning reasons to project specifically on which ground the petitioners may be prejudiced if the aforementioned witnesses are not recalled for cross examination. 5. It is further submitted that as the cross examination has been conducted by the petitioners’ engaged counsel, the petitioners cannot take this plea to fill up the lacunae. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that this petition ought to be dismissed in limine. 6. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. Petition under Section 311 of CrPC is marked as Annexure-10 of this petition. It is true that no specific grounds or no specific questions have been mentioned in the petition, which the petitioners have proposed to ask by recalling and cross examining the aforementioned witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it has been stated in the petition that the petitioners have prayed for recalling the witnesses under Section 311 of CrPC for the ends of justice. 8. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it has been stated in the petition that the petitioners have prayed for recalling the witnesses under Section 311 of CrPC for the ends of justice. 8. I have also considered the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the order impugned by the petitioners is not erroneous as the petition is a cryptic and a vague petition. 9. It has been submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioners cannot pray for recalling the witnesses in a blanket and evasive prayer as “for the ends of justice”. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell reported in (1999) 6 SCC 110 and has submitted that this judgment still holds the field. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad (supra) that : “8. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an oversight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No parry in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors. 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. After all, function of the criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better.” 11. Relying on the decision in the case of Rajendra Prasad (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that indeed no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court ought to be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified as the function of the Criminal Court is administration of criminal justice and not to count to errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better. 12. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is also submitted that petitioners are behind bars and they are the ones who will be prejudiced if trial is further extended if the witnesses are recalled to be cross examined. 13. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition instantly by setting aside the order impugned by the petitioners dated 04.10.2024 passed in the Special (NDPS) Case No. 107/2022 by the Court of the Special Judge, Karimganj. The petitioners may file a fresh petition by specifically mentioning on which points or particulars the witnesses namely Rajesh Urang (PW-1), Pradip Koiri (PW-2) and Rajib Singha (PW-3) are required to be recalled for cross examination and this petition may be considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. 14. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of.