- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14127 CRL.P No. 14276 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14276 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. VENKATESHA S/O KESHAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT KARENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU – 562 101. 2. NIRANJAN S/O VENKATESHWAR RAO AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT KARENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU – 562 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VINAYA B. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DODDABALLAPURA RURAL P.S BENGALURU RURAL REPRESENTED BY THE SPP HIGH COURT PREMISES BENGALURU CITY – 560 001. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14127 CRL.P No. 14276 of 2025 2. HARISH S/O NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF 1ST CROSS KARENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU – 561 205. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2025 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA IN SC NO.10007/2022 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO RECALL THE PW 14, 15, 19 AND 20 AND FURTHER EXAMINE FOR THE REASON STATED ABOVE TO MEET. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question an order dated 04.09.2025, passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, in S.C.No.10007/2022, whereby the concerned Court declines to allow the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of the witnesses – PWs.14, 15, 19 and 20. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14127 CRL.P No. 14276 of 2025 2. Heard Sri Vinaya B.R., learned counsel for petitioners and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 3. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 get embroiled in a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of the IPC in Crime No.193/2021. The police after investigation file their charge sheet and the matter is committed to the Sessions Court. 4. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 file an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of witnesses - PWs.14, 15, 19 and 20 for cross-examination. The said application comes to be rejected, notwithstanding the fact that aforesaid four witnesses were never cross-examined. 5. The purport of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. shall not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, particularly, when the alleged offence, which can lead to punishment of more than 10 years. Therefore, it is pertinent to quote the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14127 CRL.P No. 14276 of 2025 SOVARAN SINGH PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 351, wherein, it is held as follows: “Rights under Section 311 and 313 Cr. P.C. 29. Additionally, we may note the manner in which the application to recall under Section 311 was filed and the statement of the accused in Section 313 Cr. P.C. was refused and recorded respectively, is rendered questionable in the sum total of circumstance. Both rights under these Sections are important for a trial to reach a just conclusion. This principle has been repeatedly emphasized by this Court through various judgments. 30. On Section 311 and the rejection of the application, we may refer to the observations of this Court in the Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat37. It was said: “26… The section is manifestly in two parts. Whereas the word used in the first part is “may”, the second part uses “shall”. In consequence, the first part gives purely discretionary authority to a criminal court and enables it at any stage of an enquiry, trial or proceeding under the Code (a) to summon anyone as a witness, or (b) to examine any person present in the court, or (c) to recall and reexamine any person whose evidence has already been recorded. On the other hand, the second part is mandatory and compels the court to take any of the aforementioned steps if the new evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case. This is a supplementary provision enabling, and in certain circumstances imposing on the court the duty of examining a material witness who would not be otherwise brought before it. It is couched in the widest possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with regard to the stage at which the powers of the court should be exercised, or - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14127 CRL.P No. 14276 of 2025 with regard to the manner in which it should be exercised. It is not only the prerogative but also the plain duty of a court to examine such of those witnesses as it considers absolutely necessary for doing justice between the State and the subject. There is a duty cast upon the court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of such means is the examination of witnesses of its own accord when for certain obvious reasons either party is not prepared to call witnesses who are known to be in a position to speak important relevant facts. 27. 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 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”. It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14127 CRL.P No. 14276 of 2025 28. As indicated above, the section is wholly discretionary. The second part of it imposes upon the Magistrate an obligation : it is, that the court shall summon and examine all persons whose evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. It is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the court… 29. The object of Section 311 is to bring on record evidence not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of the orderly society. If a witness called by the court gives evidence against the complainant, he should be allowed an opportunity to cross-examine. The right to cross-examine a witness who is called by a court arises not under the provisions of Section 311, but under the Evidence Act which gives a party the right to cross- examine a witness who is not his own witness. Since a witness summoned by the court could not be termed a witness of any particular party, the court should give the right of cross-examination to the complainant. These aspects were highlighted in Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra [(1967) 3 SCR 415 : AIR 1968 SC 178 : 1968 Cri LJ 231].” (Emphasis supplied) [See also : Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra38; Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell39; Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.40; Natasha Singh v. CBI41; Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar42; State v. N. Seenivasagan43; and Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana44] 30.1. A perusal and consideration of the aforesaid decisions reveal the following principles as governing the application of Section 311 Cr. P.C.: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14127 CRL.P No. 14276 of 2025 (a) The Section is divided into two parts, the first being directory with the use of the word ‘may’ and the latter being mandatory with the use of the word ‘shall’. (b) The power of the Court is couched in the widest terms possible with no express limitation thereon. (c) The exercise of such power is not only the prerogative but also the duty of the Court, in connection with a witness who may be considered absolutely necessary, in the interest of justice. (d) This power is to be used both for the benefit of the prosecution and the defence. To summon a witness because it serves the case of one of the parties and not the other, would be improper. (e) This power can be exercised at any stage of proceedings, i.e. enquiry, trial or any other. (f) Power is to be exercised judiciously since wider the power, greater the requirement of the application of a judicial mind. (g) If a witness so-called under this power, gives evidence against the complainant, the latter should be given an opportunity to cross-examination. This power arises not under Section 311 but under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (h) A witness cannot be recalled by the use of this power to simply fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution. 31. The order rejecting the application to recall witnesses, dated 18th February 2017 reads as below: “18.02.2017- Case called out Accused present in J.C. But not present. Counsel heared on application 32-B brief order is passed on the application. After lunch on 2.30 P.M. an application for time to adduce defence witness 35-B moved by defence counsel. Order passed on the application “Vide order of even date, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14127 CRL.P No. 14276 of 2025 application u/s 311 moved by Ld counsel has been rejected. He sought time to adduce arguments which was granted. After which, he has moved application for providing defence evidence. If the Ld. Counsel produce the witness on the date fixed he will be examined failing which matter will be posted for Judgment after hearing argument of the prosecution.” (A.S.J. 1st)” Such a summary rejection, in our view, is unjustified. The object and purpose of this power of wide amplitude resting with the Trial Court has been detailed in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) (supra). Given that the counsel for the accused had been changed, an additional charge has been added against the accused and that it had taken over two years to record the evidence of the witnesses, taking the sum total of circumstances, such an application should have been allowed.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the purport of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and the judgment of the Apex Court as afore-quoted, the petition deserves to succeed, with an observation that this would be a last straw of opportunity to the petitioners to file an application seeking recall of the aforesaid four witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order: ORDER a. The criminal petition stands allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14127 CRL.P No. 14276 of 2025 b. The application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.10007/2022 stands allowed. c. The order dated 04.09.2025, passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, passed in S.C.No.10007/2022 stands quashed. d. The concerned Court shall permit the petitioners to recall PWs.14, 15, 19 and 20 for cross-examination and regulate its procedure to conclude the proceedings and see to it that this opportunity is not a ruse to drag the proceedings. e. It is made clear that this would be the last straw of opportunity to the petitioners to file an application seeking recall of the aforesaid four witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36