- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8192 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. NARAYANA. G @ ASHWATHANARAYAN G AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SON OF LATE GUTHYAPPA 2. DILIP R AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SON OF RAMESH 3. PRADEEP R AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS SON OF RAMESH 4. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SON OF GUTHYAPPA 5. HANUMANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SON OF GUTHYAPPA 6. SUKHIL AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS SON OF SOMASHEKHAR 7. RANJITH Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, SON OF LAKSHMINARAYAN 8. CHATURVEDI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, SON OF PUTTARUDRA 9. RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, SON OF APPAYANNA RESIDING AT DIBBURU, KAKOLU HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 10. SUNIL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, SON OF RANGASWAMY 11. MURALI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SON OF NARAYANASWAMY 12. THILAK AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, SON OF JAGADISH ACHAR 13. MOHAN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, SON OF NARAYANA. G @ASHWATHANARAYANA 14. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SON OF RANGAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 ALL THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 8 AND 10 TO 14 ARE RESIDING AT ADDE VISHWANATHAPURA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YALAHANKA TALUK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAREDDY K. N, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJANUKUNTE POLICE STATION, YALAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 30.04.2026, ON I.A FILED U/S 311 OF Cr.PC IN SC.NO.10012/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 4TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SITTING AT DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING THE SAID I.A OF PETITIONERS HEREIN AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before the Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 30.04.2026 whereby an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' for short) filed by the petitioners seeking PW1 to PW13 for the purpose of cross-examination. The concerned Court rejects the said application and therefore, the petitioners are before the Court. 2. Heard Sri. Shivareedy K.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are facing trial for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - attempt to murder, which can land them in prison beyond 10 years and above. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the concerned Court ought to have permitted the cross- - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 examination of these witnesses, as these witnesses have never been cross-examined in the past. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader though would refute the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would admit the fact that the cross- examination of these witnesses has not happened even once, therefore would leave the decision to the Court. 5. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. What drives the petitioners to this Court is the order passed on the application, which reads as follows: "ORDERS ON APPLICATION U/S.311 Cr.P.C. This application is filed by the learned counsel for the accused U/s.311 of Cr.P.C. praying this Honourable court to recall P.W-1 to P.W-13 for cross-examination in the interest of equity and justice. 2. In the application he submit that due to some personal inconvenience of advocate on record he could not cross-examine witnesses. Other colleague advocate has requested court to grant time. But cross-examination was taken as nail. Accused is charged in respect of heinous offences. He is innocent and falsely implicated in the above case. Therefore, considering the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of punishment prescribed, it is necessary to grant time to cross-examine PW-1 to PW- 13. Hence the application. 3. On the other hand, Learned Public Prosecutor filed objections contending that CW-6, CW-7, CW10 and CW- - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 4, CW-1, CW-2, CW-3, CW-14, CW-12, CW-13, CW-8, CW-9 and CW-20 are examined as PW-1 to PW-13 respectively. Sufficient opportunity was given by this court to cross examine the witnesses. Since no sufficient grounds are made out, application is filed in order to drag on the proceedings. Hence prayed for rejection of the same. 4. Heard both sides on the application and perused the materials on record. 5. From the above facts following points arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the learned counsel for accused has made out sufficient grounds for allowing the application for cross- examining P.W-1 to P.W-13 ? 2. What order? 6. My findings on the above points are as follows: Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following; REASONS 7. Point No.1:- Records reveal that accused are charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 307, 323, 341, 353, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. Order sheet reveals that PW-1 to PW-13 are examined. Trial started from 16.04.2025 onwards. The deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 indicate that, they have partly supported the case of prosecution, both the witnesses have admitted to few suggestions put by Learned Public Prosecutor when they were turned hostile. The deposition copies indicate that as per the request of counsel for accused, dates were fixed and witnesses were examined. In spite of it, counsel prays time. Since there was no valid grounds, Predecessor in office has rejected the prayer and cross-examination was taken as - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 nil. Though the said order was passed on 16.04.2024 subsequently no effort was made to recall the witnesses. Further, PW-3 has given supportive evidence. It was noted in the deposition that since there were no valid grounds to grant time, the prayer of counsel for the accused was rejected. PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11 and PW-12 have turned completely hostile. So, question of recalling these witnesses does not arise at all. In respect of PW-13 is concerned he is fully cross- examined. When PW-8 was examined, counsel for accused was absent and therefore cross examination was taken as nil. Similarly PW-4 when he was examined, junior advocate sought time that senior was not in station. Considering the fact that, it was not a valid ground, prayer was rejected. Therefore, considering the deposition copies, only PW-3, PW-4 and P.W-8 have given supportive evidence and they are not cross examined. Therefore, an opportunity was given and it was not utilized. Apart from this, whatever the reason given by the advocate was not found genuine and hence cross-examination was taken as nil. 8. Without noticing that most of the witnesses have turned hostile, application is filed in mechanical way without any valid reasons. Only ground stated in the application is that due to some personal inconvenience witnesses would not be cross-examined. This shows the seriousness of the counsel in conducting the case. It shows as a routine manner and a formalities application is filed. Though the witnesses were examined way back in the month of April 2025, till date counsel has kept quite and now the present application is filed what prevented them from not filing the application at the earliest is not disclosed. 9. Taking into consideration that the alleged offence was committed during the year 2022 and trial was commenced in the year 2024 and even after 2 years the matter could not be disposed off and the main hurdle is absence of accused and his counsel. The witnesses are rustic villagers and they cannot be recalled mechanically at the whims and fancies of the accused. Their interest should also be protected as provided under Victim Protection Scheme. Though accused are charge-sheeted - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., which is a heinous offence, for which grievous punishment is prescribed, proceedings are not conducted seriously and therefore, I find no valid grounds to allow the said application. On the other hand, same deserves to be rejected on heavy costs. Accordingly, this point no.1 is answered in the negative. 10. Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following :- ORDER Application filed by the learned counsel for accused under section 311 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected on cost of Rs. 1,500/-. Issue NBW to CW-18 and CW-21. Returnable by 11-06-2026." It is further admitted that PW1 to PW1w3 are never cross-examined in the trial before the concerned Court. While opportunities had been granted to these petitioners to cross- examine PW1 to PW13, but they have not availed of. Merely non-availing of the opportunity that is granted once or twice would not mean that the purport of application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. would vanish into thin air. The Apex Court, considering the circumstances in which the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. should be allowed has held in the case of VARSHA GARG Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986, wherein it has held as follows: "31. Having clarified that the bar under Section 301 is inapplicable and that the appellant is well placed to pursue this appeal, we now examine Section 311 of CrPC. Section 311 provides that the Court “may”: (i) Summon any person as a witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; and (ii) Recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined. 32. This power can be exercised at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC. The latter part of Section 311 states that the Court “shall” summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person “if his evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case”. Section 311 contains a power upon the Court in broad terms. The statutory provision must be read purposively, to achieve the intent of the statute to aid in the discovery of truth. 33. The first part of the statutory provision which uses the expression “may” postulates that the power can be exercised at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The latter part of the provision mandates the recall of a witness by the Court as it uses the expression “shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case”. Essentiality of the evidence of the person who is to be examined coupled with the need for the just decision of the case constitute the touchstone which must guide the decision of the Court. The first part of the statutory provision is discretionary while the latter part is obligatory. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 34. A two judge Bench of this Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni (supra) while dealing with pari materia provisions of Section 540 of the Criminal Code of Procedure 1898 observed: “16. The second part of Section 540 as pointed out albeit imposes upon the court an obligation of summoning or recalling and re- examining any witness and the only condition prescribed is that the evidence sought to be obtained must be essential to the just decision of the case. When any party to the proceedings points out the desirability of some evidence being taken, then the court has to exercise its power under this provision — either discretionary or mandatory — depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, having in view that the most paramount principle underlying this provision is to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts in order to meet the requirements of justice.” 35. Justice S Ratnavel Pandian, speaking for the two judge Bench, noted that the power is couched in the widest possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with regard to the stage at which it can be exercised or the manner of its exercise. It is only circumscribed by the principle that the “evidence to be obtained should appear to the court essential to a just decision of the case by getting at the truth by all lawful means.” In that context the Court observed: “18 …Therefore, 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. Further it is incumbent that due care should be taken by the court while exercising the power under this section and it should not be used for filling up the lacuna left by the - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 prosecution or by the defence or to the disadvantage of the accused or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused or to give an unfair advantage to the rival side and further the additional evidence should not be received as a disguise for a retrial or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties.” 36. Summing up the position as it obtained from various decisions of this Court, namely Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., State of W.B. v. Tulsidas Mundhra, Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra, Masalti v. State of U.P., Rajeswar Prosad Misra v. State of W.B. and R.B. Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held: “27. The principle of law that emerges from the views expressed by this Court in the above decisions is that the criminal court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re- examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command the examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.” 37. The power of the court is not constrained by the closure of evidence. Therefore, it is amply clear from the above discussion that the broad powers under Section 311 are to be governed by the requirement of justice. The power must be exercised wherever the court finds that any evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The statutory provision goes to emphasise that the court is not a hapless bystander in the derailment of justice. Quite to the contrary, the court has a vital role to discharge in ensuring that the cause of discovering truth as an aid in the realization of justice is manifest. 38. Section 91 CrPC empowers inter alia any Court to issue summons to a person in whose possession or - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 power a document or thing is believed to be, where it considers the production of the said document or thing necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC. 39. Section 91 forms part of Chapter VII of CrPC which is titled “Processes to Compel the Production of Things”. Chapter XVI of the CrPC titled “Commencement of Proceedings before Magistrates” includes Section 207 which provides for the supply to the accused of a copy of the police report and other documents in any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report.25 Both operate in distinct spheres. 40. In the present case, the application of the prosecution for the production of the decoding registers is relatable to the provisions of Section 91 CrPC. The decoding registers are sought to be produced through the representatives of the cellular companies in whose custody or possession they are found. The decoding registers are a relevant piece of evidence to establish the co-relationship between the location of the accused and the cell phone tower. The reasons which weighed with the High Court and the Trial Court in dismissing the application are extraneous to the power which is conferred under Section 91 on the one hand and Section 311 on the other. The summons to produce a document or other thing under Section 91 can be issued where the Court finds that the production of the document or thing “is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, trial or other proceeding” under the CrPC. As already noted earlier, the power under Section 311 to summon a witness is conditioned by the requirement that the evidence of the person who is sought to be summoned appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case. 41. PWs 33, 41, 43 and 48, who were the nodal officers of Idea, Airtel, Reliance and Vodafone have - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 already been examined. During the examination of PW- 41, the nodal officer of Airtel, the witness specifically deposed during the course of examination that: “2. Call detail of mobile number XXXXXXXXXX, which has 134 pages is Exhibit P-104, I sent the same detail of the call to the police. Each page of the same has seal of Bharti Airtel on the same. Call detail contains date and time wise detail of call and short message services made/sent and received by the customer. Additionally, location of the mobile number is available in code number along with the time of the call or message for which call detail is provided. Location of the call made by the mobile number in certain time has been shown with codes, I cannot state name of the location today by seeing the code. Location can be stated after decoding the same. We have coding chart for location, by seeing the same location can be started. I don't have aforesaid chart along with me. Aforesaid chart is available in the office.” (emphasis supplied) 42. The relevance of the decoding register clearly emerges from the above statement of PW-41. Hence, the effort of the prosecution to produce the decoding register which is a crucial and vital piece of evidence ought not to have been obstructed. In terms of the provisions of Section 311, the summoning of the witness for the purpose of producing the decoding register was essential for the just decision of the case. 43. Having dealt with the satisfaction of the requirements of Section 311, we deal with the objection of the respondents that the application should not be allowed as it will lead to filling in the lacunae of the prosecution's case. However, even the said reason cannot be an absolute bar to allowing an application under Section 311. - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 44. In the decision in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat, which was more recently reiterated in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd.27, the Court specifically dealt with this objection and observed that the resultant filling of loopholes on account of allowing an application under Section 311 is merely a subsidiary factor and the Court's determination of the application should only be based on the test of the essentiality of the evidence. It noted that: “28. The court is not empowered under the provisions of the Code to compel either the prosecution or the defence to examine any particular witness or witnesses on their side. This must be left to the parties. But in weighing the evidence, the court can take note of the fact that the best available evidence has not been given, and can draw an adverse inference. The court will often have to depend on intercepted allegations made by the parties, or on inconclusive inference from facts elicited in the evidence. In such cases, the court has to act under the second part of the section. Sometimes the examination of witnesses as directed by the court may result in what is thought to be “filling of loopholes”. That is purely a subsidiary factor and cannot be taken into account. Whether the new evidence is essential or not must of course depend on the facts of each case, and has to be determined by the Presiding Judge. (emphasis supplied) 45. The right of the accused to a fair trial is constitutionally protected under Article 21. However, in Mina Lalita Baruwa (supra), while reiterating Rajendra Prasad (supra), the Court observed that it is the duty of the criminal court to allow the prosecution to correct an error in interest of justice. In Rajendra Prasad (supra), the Court had held that: - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 “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 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 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.” (emphasis supplied) 46. In the present case, the importance of the decoding registers was raised in the examination of PW- 41. Accordingly, the decoding registers merely being additional documents required to be able to appreciate the existing evidence in form of the call details which are already on record but use codes to signify the location of accused, a crucial detail, which can be decoded only through the decoding registers, the right of the accused to a fair trial is not prejudiced. The production of the decoding registers fits into the requirement of being relevant material which was not brought on record due to inadvertence. 47. Finally, we also briefly deal with the objection of the respondents regarding the stage at which the application under Section 311 was filed. The respondents have placed reliance on Swapan Kumar (supra), a two judge Bench decision of this Court, to argue that the application should not be allowed as it has been made at a belated stage. The Court in Swapan Kumar (supra) observed: - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 “11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has wide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law. 12. Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non- examination of the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision.” 48. In the present appeal, the argument that the application was filed after the closure of the evidence of the prosecution is manifestly erroneous. As already noted above, the closure of the evidence of the prosecution took place after the application for the production of the decoding register and for summoning of the witness under Section 311 was dismissed. Though the dismissal of the application and the closure of the prosecution evidence both took place on 13 November 2021, the application by the prosecution had been filed on 15 March 2021 nearly eight months earlier. As a matter of fact, another witness for the prosecution, Rajesh Kumar Singh, was also released after examination and cross-examination on the same day as recorded in - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 the order dated 13 November 2021 of the trial court. 49. The Court is vested with a broad and wholesome power, in terms of Section 311 of the CrPC, to summon and examine or recall and re- examine any material witness at any stage and the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar. This Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (supra) while dealing with the prayers for adducing additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC at the appellate stage, along with a prayer for examination of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC explained the role of the court, in the following terms: “43. The courts have to take a participatory role in a trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confer vast and wide powers on presiding officers of court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence-collecting process. They have to monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss in some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively so that the ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. This becomes more necessary where the court has reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the prosecutor is not acting in the requisite manner. The court cannot afford to be wishfully or pretend to be blissfully ignorant or oblivious to such serious - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 pitfalls or dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and courts could not also play into the hands of such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness.” (emphasis supplied) 50. Further, in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) (supra), the Court reiterated the extent of powers under Section 311 and held that: “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 - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind.” (emphasis supplied) 51. The Court while reiterating the principle enunciated in Mohanlal Shamji Soni (supra) stressed upon the wide ambit of Section 311 which allows the power to be exercised at any stage and held that: “44. The power of the court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act is in a way complementary to its power under Section 311 of the Code. The section consists of two parts i.e. : (i) giving a discretion to the court to examine the witness at any stage, and (ii) the mandatory portion which compels the court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the court. Though the discretion given to the court is very wide, the very width requires a corresponding caution. In Mohanlal v. Union of India this Court has observed, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of the words such as, “any court”, “at any stage”, or “any enquiry or trial or other proceedings”, “any person” and “any such person” clearly spells out that the section has expressed in the widest-possible terms and do not limit the discretion of the court in any way. However, as noted above, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary powers should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates and binds the court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 essential to the just decision of the case, “essential” to an active and alert mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the section is to enable the court to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. The power is exercised and the evidence is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, if the court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of Section 311 but only to subserve the cause of justice and public interest. It is done with an object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth." (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and the admitted fact that the petitioners have not cross examined PW1 to PW13, I deem it appropriate to grant these petitioners one opportunity to cross examine PW1 to PW13 on the date/s fixed by the concerned Court for such cross-examination. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed; (ii) The order dated 30.04.2026 on I.A. filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.10012/2023 passed by the 4th - 21 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010390402026 NC: 2026:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8192 of 2026 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballpura, Bengaluru Rural District stands quashed; (iii) The application filed by the petitioners is allowed; (iv) The concerned Court shall fix dates for cross- examination of PW1 to PW13 and complete it on the date/s that are fixed; and (v) If the petitioners are wanting to drag the proceedings under the ruse of the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., the concerned Court shall pass necessary orders in accordance with the law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 41