Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohsin Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 November, 2022
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
....
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4988/2022.
Mohsin Khan S/o Shri Mubarik Khan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Kumharo Ka Mohla Bhadesar Ps Bhadesar Dist. Chittorgarh
Presently R/o Back Side Of Seed Go Down Pancgatwati Pratap
Nagar Dist. Chittorgarh Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/11/2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
By way of filing the instant Misc. Petiton, challenge has been
made to the order impugned dated 27.06.2022 whereby the
Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara has rejected the application
of the petitioner filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Without going into elaborate details, brief facts necessary for
the disposal of the instant Misc. Petition are that the petitioner is
facing a trial for accusation of committing offence under penal
provisions of NDPS Act. The trial had commenced way back.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4988/2022]
After examination of several prosecution witnesses including the
Investigating Officer, the petitioner had moved an application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the witness Moolchand
PW-1 who happened to be the Recovery Officer of the case on the
ground that certain questions were left from being asked when he
was examined in the Court.
I have gone through the statement of PW-1 Moolchand and
the other relevant material.
After carefully examining the entire material, I do not think
that it is a fit case for recalling of the witness because as per the
mandate of law, a witness should be recalled only when it appears
essential for the just decision of the case.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in the case of Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State) reported in 2013
(2)WLC (SC) Cri. 176 wherein it is propounded that:-
"7. Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to
summon a material witness or to examine a person
present at "any stage" of "any enquiry", or "trial" or
"any other proceedings" under the Cr.P.C., or to
summon any person as a witness, or to recall and
re-examine any person who has already been
examined if his evidence appears to it, to be
essential to the arrival of a just decision of the
case. Undoubtedly, the Cr.P.C. has conferred a
very wide discretionary power upon the court in this
respect, but such a discretion is to be exercised
judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the
court in this context is very wide, and in exercise of
the same, it may summon any person as a witness
at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4988/2022]
court is competent to exercise such power even suo
motu if no such application has been filed by either
of the parties. However, the court must satisfy
itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a
witness, or to recall him for further examination in
order to arrive at a just decision of the case."
This Court is aptly guided by the proposition of law laid down
in the case supra.
In my considered view, the petitioner has no case for
recalling of the witness since he has thoroughly been cross-
examined by the counsel of petitioner.
In this view of the matter, the instant Misc. Petition is
dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
13-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
