Legal Reference Library

High Court of Bombay Remio A. Rodrigues v. Goa Glass Fibre Ltd. MANU/MH/0819/2017 28.04.2017 Labour and Industrial Tribunal has power to recall witness on ground of mistake of an Advocate Challenge in present petition is to order, by which learned Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal dismissed Petitioner's application for recall of a witness for purpose of cross-examination. It is submitted that under Section 11(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Tribunal has power to recall a witness. Application for recall is required to be allowed in peculiar facts and circumstances of present case. Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd., has held that, Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of said Act confers upon Tribunal same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under Civil Procedure Code in matter of enforcing the attendance of a person and examining him on oath. This power includes power to recall a witness. Blanket ...

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in SHRI RAWATPURA SARKAR LOK KALYAN TRUST Vs SHRI SHRINAGARDHAM UDASEEN ASHRAM NIJI NYAS SIRSAWAN CHITRAKOOT has held that re-cross examination of the witnesses under Order 18 and Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code after evidence is closed is permissible in a civil suit. The trial court had dismissed the application of the petitioner for re-cross examination of the witness  after evidence is closed on ground that the petitioner could not file the application under Order 18 and Rule 17 of the CPC to re-cross examine the witnesses as the power to recall the witnesses for the same is vested only with it.

Madras High Court has recently directed the Trial Courts to treat victims and witnesses as Court’s Guests. Justice Dr.P.Devadass was considering applications under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Accused persons in a corruption Case, challenging the Order of Special Judge by which he dismissed their Petitions to re-call the witnesses for cross examination. The Counsel for the Applicants has submitted that under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, power has been given to the Court to recall a witness, who has been already examined or to summon a fresh witness. It is intended to bring forth relevant evidence to the notice of the Court to enable it to render a correct finding. When it is essential to recall, the Court is bound to recall it. Need of balance Approach: The Court has observed that too much insistence on the right of the accused, forgetting the plight of the victim is not a correct approach. “On the one hand there is right of defence constitutionally ...

The Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar & Others has held that, recalling of witnesses as envisaged under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds that accused persons are in custody, the prosecution was allowed to recall some of its witnesses earlier, the counsel was ill and magnanimity commands fairness should be shown, is not acceptable. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit set aside a Judgment of High Court which had allowed the accused to recall the witnesses on the aforementioned grounds. ‘ACCUSED PERSONS ARE IN CUSTODY’ NOT A GROUND TO JUSTIFY RECALL The Bench observed: “The High Court has been moved by the ground that the accused persons are in the custody and the concept of speedy trial is not nullified and no prejudice is caused, and, therefore, the principle of magnanimity should apply. Suffice it to say, a criminal trial does not singularly centres around the accused. In it there is involvement of the prosecu...