[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dhaneswar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party(S) on 20 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.851 of 2026
Dhaneswar Sahoo ..... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sahoo,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 20.03.2025
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been instituted by the Petitioner seeking
to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the
order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned CJM-cum-
Assistant Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in S.T. Case No.109-116 of
2017, whereby the petition filed by the present Petitioner under
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.13, the I.O, for the
purpose of further cross-examination, has been rejected.
3. The grievance of the Petitioner, in essence, is that the
learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the true scope and
object of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., which vests the Court with
wide discretionary powers to summon or recall any witness at
any stage of the trial if such evidence appears to be essential for
arriving at a just decision of the case. It is contended that the
testimony of P.W.13 being the I.O constitutes a crucial piece of
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Page 1 of 6.
evidence in the adjudication of the allegations involved in the
case, and therefore denial of an opportunity to further cross-
examine the said witness would cause serious prejudice to the
defense of the Petitioner and impair the fairness of the trial.
4. The Petitioner, therefore, contends that the impugned
order rejecting the prayer under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. suffers
from non-application of judicial mind and is liable to be
interfered with in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse
of the process of the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner is facing trial for the alleged offences under Section
498(A)/306/109451/323/294/506/34 of the IPC. It is contended that
in the midst of cross-examination the counsel felt serious head
reeling and unable to sit in the Court room. Hence, he prayed to
defer the cross-examination to some other date. The learned trial
court rejected the same in the premises that the medical
prescription appended to the petition does not mention the
illness of the learned counsel who was physically conducting the
cross-examination whereas the said prescription relates to Mr.
Dillip Kumar Panda, learned counsel who has the power.
6. It is therefore contended that the rejection of the
Petitioner's application filed under Section 348 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking recall of P.W.13 has
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Page 2 of 6.
caused serious prejudice to the defence. According to the
Petitioner, the denial of such an opportunity has resulted in
grave prejudice to the accused and the impugned order reflects
a failure to appreciate that the recall of the witness was necessary
for arriving at a just and fair decision of the case.Learned counsel
for the Petitioner further contends that the impugned order
suffers from the vice of gross non application of judicial mind to
the materials on record and warrants interference u/s. 528
B.N.S.S., 2023.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that
the law relating to the exercise of powers under Section 348 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is well settled. The
provision confers wide discretionary powers upon the trial
Court to summon, recall or re-examine any witness at any stage
of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding if the evidence of such
witness appears to be essential for arriving at a just decision of
the case.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State
vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the
Petitioner and contends that the contentions raised in the present
petition are wholly misconceived. Learned counsel further
submits that the present petition has been filed by the Petitioner
with the sole intent to protract the proceedings and delay the
trial, despite the materials collected during investigation clearly
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Page 3 of 6.
disclosing the commission of the alleged offences. It is therefore
contended that the petition, being devoid of any merit and not
disclosing any ground for exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court, deserves to be dismissed in limine.
9. The scope and ambit of the power to recall or re-examine
a witness has been authoritatively explained by the Supreme
Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India1, wherein it
was held that the object of the provision is to enable the Court to
arrive at the truth and render a just decision and that the Court
may exercise such power at any stage if the evidence of a witness
appears essential to the just decision of the case. The Court
further held that the provision confers very wide and plenary
powers upon the Court, which are to be exercised with great
caution and circumspection. Nevertheless, such powers are
intended to be invoked whenever the ends of justice so demand
or where intervention becomes necessary to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court.
10. The inherent jurisdiction is thus designed to ensure that
the administration of justice is not thwarted by technicalities and
that the judicial process is not permitted to be misused for
ulterior purposes. In the context of determination of age in cases
involving allegations under the POCSO Act, the Supreme Court
in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana2 held that age determination
AIR 1991 SC 1346
Signature Not 2Verified
AIR 2013 Supreme Court
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Page 4 of 6.
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 20-Mar-2026 17:10:16
must ordinarily be based on reliable documentary evidence such
as school records or birth certificates and in their absence
medical opinion may be considered. Therefore, where the
determination of age has been made without scientific tests or
supporting documentary proof, effective cross-examination of
the medical officer assumes considerable significance for a just
adjudication of the case.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the
considered view that the ends of justice would be served by
granting limited liberty to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the
CRLMC is disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a
separate application before the learned trial Court seeking recall
of P.W.13, the I.O, specifically indicating therein the questions
proposed to be put to the said witness.
12. In the event such an application is filed, the learned CJM-
cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Kendrapara shall consider the
same in accordance with law and may allow the application
subject to the condition that the cross-examination shall remain
strictly confined to the questionnaire set out in the said
application and shall not travel beyond the scope thereof.
13. The Petitioner is granted liberty to file such an
application within fifteen (15) days from today. Upon such
application being filed, the learned CJM-cum-Assistant Sessions
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Page 5 of 6.
Judge, Kendrapara shall consider the same expeditiously and
ensure that the cross-examination of P.W.13 is conducted at the
earliest possible opportunity.
14. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Page 6 of 6.
