Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gangaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:51744) on 27 November, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:51744]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1469/2025

Gangaram S/o Bharuram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Sihadiya, P.s
Sedwa, District Barmer
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Mangilal Vishnoi.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

27/11/2025

1. The matter comes up on an application (IA No.01/2025) filed

by the petitioner for rectification in the date of impugned order

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, the

revision petition has been filed challenging order dated

09.09.2025 passed by the learned trial court but due to a

typographical and inadvertent error, date of the impugned order

has been incorrectly mentioned as 08.10.2025 in both subject

matter and the prayer clause of the revision petition. It is

submitted that error was unintentional and bona fide. Therefore,

learned counsel prays that application for rectification be allowed.

3. In view of the reasons stated in the application, same is

allowed. The date of the impugned order mentioned in the subject

matter and the prayer clause of the revision petition shall be

corrected to 09.09.2025 in place of 08.10.2025.

(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 04:51:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51744] (2 of 7) [CRLR-1469/2025]

4. By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned

Special Judge, NDPS cases, (Additional Sessions Judge, No.1),

Barmer, whereby application moved by the prosecution under

Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been allowed.

5. The facts as reflected in the impugned order are that on

17.07.2025, the Special Public Prosecutor moved an application

under Section 311 CrPC stating that the seizure officer and

investigating officer, Shri Ram Singh, who had prepared the

seizure memo and effected recovery of the alleged contraband,

had expired during the pendency of the trial. The judicial officer

who had conducted the inventory proceedings under the NDPS

Act, Shri Sher Singh Meena, had also passed away. It was

submitted that PW-4 Hardan had accompanied late Ram Singh

during the seizure and was competent to identify the report,

signatures, and seized goods; and for proving the inventory

proceedings, the prosecution sought to summon the then Station

House Officer, Shri Hukumaram. It is stated that in the absence of

both these witnesses, crucial documents in the case will not be

exhibited. It was therefore prayed that name of both aforesaid

witnesses may be included in the calendar of witnesses and they

may be summoned for recording their evidences.

6. The trial court, after hearing the parties, allowed the

application and summoned both the aforesaid witnesses through

bailable warrants.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor.

(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 04:51:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51744] (3 of 7) [CRLR-1469/2025]

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after

recording the evidence; final arguments were already concluded

on 05.07.2025, and the matter was posted for judgment on

17.07.2025. It was argued that the prosecution could not summon

a new witnesses at this stage of the trial, and that the application

was impermissible and intended to fill lacunae on the part of the

prosecution. The counsel for petitioner cited following judgments

in support of his contentions:-

1. Ram Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision No.816/2016)

2. Union of India Vs. Chanchal Singh (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2805/2009)

3. Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 2 WLC 753

4. Bhagwan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.39/2011)

9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial

court properly appreciated the facts & circumstances and

committed no illegality or perversity warranting interference.

10. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned

counsel for the parties.

11. The scope of Section 311 CrPC which is relevant for the

present purpose is reproduced hereunder:

"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present--Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 04:51:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51744] (4 of 7) [CRLR-1469/2025]

12. Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon any

person as a witness or to recall and re-examine any person

already examined at any stage of inquiry, trial or other

proceeding, if such evidence appears to the court to be essential

for a just decision of the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in V.N. V.

K. NIRANJAN KUMAR & ORS.(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).

8965 of 2018, has held as under: -

"14....

15. The object underlying Section 311 CrPC 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 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 the discretionary power conferred under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said "wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion."

13. The apex court in Ratanlal v Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC

340 has held as under:-

"16.....

17.In To enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted, whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the

(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 04:51:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51744] (5 of 7) [CRLR-1469/2025]

reasons for exercising this power should be spelt out in the order.

18. In Vijay Kumar v.State of U.P.[Vijay Kumar v.State of U.P., (2011) 8 SCC 136 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 371 :

(2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 240], this Court while explaining scope and ambit of Section 311 has held as under:

(SCC p. 141, para 17)

"17. Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of [CrPC] and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously."

19.In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v.State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8] , this Court has considered the concept underlying under Section 311 as under: (SCC p. 392, para 27)

"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 5 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

(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 04:51:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51744] (6 of 7) [CRLR-1469/2025]

is the necessity for application of judicial mind."

14. In the present case, it is undisputed that both officers--Ram

Singh, the seizure/investigating officer, and Sher Singh Meena, the

judicial magistrate who prepared the inventory have passed away.

Their deaths are supervening circumstances beyond the control of

the prosecution. The witnesses sought to be summoned were

admittedly associated with the seizure and inventory proceedings

and are competent to depose regarding those foundational

aspects. In an NDPS prosecution, proof of seizure and the

inventory are not mere formalities; they constitute the core of the

prosecution's case.

15. The fact that matter was posted for final arguments is not,

by itself, a bar to the exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC, if