Abdulla Mondal vs State Of West Bengal

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

The procedural framework of our criminal jurisprudence is neither a game of technicalities nor a ritualistic contest where the relentless pursuit of truth can be sacrificed at the altar of rigid timelines. The soul and substance of every judicial inquiry lies in a solemn constitutional quest for the discovery of absolute truth and the delivery of substantive justice. If truth is buried under technicalities, or if a court shuts its eyes to vital evidence simply because of some perceived delay, justice becomes an inevitable casualty. Guided by this cardinal judicial philosophy, this Court proceeds to examine the challenge mounted in the present revision petition.

The present criminal revision petition invokes the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the legality, propriety, and correctness of the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia, in Sessions Case No. 3(1) of 2015. By the said order, the Learned Trial Judge allowed an application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') dated 29.10.2022.

The foundational facts emanate from serious criminal allegations culminating in a full-fledged commitment to the Court of Sessions at Nadia. During the advanced stages of the trial, an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was preferred on 29.10.2022, seeking to summon or recall certain witness testimonies and material evidence deemed vital for the proper appreciation of the lis. Upon considering the rival submissions, the Learned Trial Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction and allowed the application. Aggrieved by the latitude shown by the Trial Court, the petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, this revision.

The primary questions that fall for judicial determination in the present revision petition are succinctly crystallized as follows:

First: Whether the Learned Trial Court committed a patent error of law or jurisdictional excess in allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 29.10.2022.

Second: Whether the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-assignment of reasons or amounts to permitting a party to fill up an avoidable lacuna in its case.

Third: Whether the passage of time or delay between the initial examination of witnesses and the filing of an application under Section 311 operates as an absolute statutory bar against the invocation of this discretionary power.

Ms. Karabi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be weaponized or utilized as a back-door mechanism to fill up gaping holes, omissions, or lacunae left in a party’s evidence during the primary trial stage.

She further submitted that the Learned Trial Court committed grave illegality by passing a cryptic order that allowed the application without recording explicit satisfaction or subjective necessity regarding how the proposed evidence was essential to the just decision of the case.

Finally, Ms. Roy urged that the petition was moved long after the examination and cross-examination of witnesses had concluded, representing an afterthought and a dilatory tactic designed to harass the defence and prolong the trial indefinitely. Accordingly, a prayer was made to set aside the impugned order.

Per contra, Mr. Ramashish Mukherjee, the Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal supported the legality, soundness, and wisdom of the impugned order. He further submitted that under the explicit, uncompromised phraseology of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., there is no rigid timeframe or statutory limitation preventing a party or the Court from moving or entertaining such an application prior to the pronouncement of judgment.

Furthermore, Mr. Mukherjee contended that a Trial Court is not a mute spectator in a criminal trial; where the Court forms a subjective opinion that the examination or recall of a witness is imperative for a complete, fair, and comprehensive adjudication, technical delays must yield to the larger demands of public interest and substantive justice and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

To resolve the core controversy, it is imperative to examine the legislative scheme of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in light of established judicial pronouncements. Section 311 reads as follows:

A plain reading shows that the provision is bifurcated into two distinct parts:

The petitioner heavily criticized the timing of the application, arguing it was filed long after witness examinations were concluded. Evaluating this contention against the statutory phrase "at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding", this Court finds that delay per se does not oust the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The provision is expansive enough to accommodate a belated application, provided the Court is satisfied that such evidence of the person to be summoned under the said application is essential for a just decision.

As illuminated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2019) 14 SCC 328, discretionary power must be exercised robustly and prudently, and a mere passage of time cannot characterize an application as mala fide unless it strikes at the core fairness of the trial. Here, the Trial Court rightly recognized that the pursuit of truth cannot be shackled by rigid chronological boundaries if the evidence sought is critical for complete adjudication.

The most vociferous argument advanced by the revisionist was that Section 311 was utilized to fill up a lacuna. In this context, the ratio decidendi of the Apex Court in Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 5 SCC 741 assumes profound significance. The Supreme Court underscored that while Section 311 should not be utilized to permit a party to fill up avoidable loopholes or cause serious prejudice, the overarching consideration must always remain whether the evidence sought is crucial to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Jurisprudence dictates that every piece of additional evidence technically fills a gap; otherwise, no application under Section 311 would ever be maintainable. The true judicial test is whether the gap being filled is a deliberate, dishonest afterthought designed to prejudice the adversary, or a bona fide correction to reach the core truth. The petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate any manifest prejudice or foul play in the allowance of the application dated 29.10.2022.

Furthermore, as famously enunciated by the Apex Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158, the court’s primary objective is to unearth the truth, and the fairness of a trial is not a one-way street running solely in favour of the accused; it encompasses the rights of the victim and society at large. If a court acts passively when monumental or necessary evidence is left out, it fails in its statutory mandate.

When the Learned Trial Judge allowed the application vide the order dated 23.11.2022, the subjective satisfaction of the Court was clearly aligned with bridging an evidentiary gap to ensure that the ultimate judgment was not rendered on an inchoate or flawed presentation of facts.

A meticulous examination of the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 reveals the precise reasoning adopted by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia. A perusal demonstrates that the Learned Judge did not act mechanically or pass a rubber-stamp order; rather, he explicitly considered the stage of the proceeding in Sessions Case No. 3(1) of 2015 and evaluated the foundational necessity of the witness/evidence sought to be introduced.

The Trial Judge reasoned that the evidence sought to be brought on record was not intended to cause vexation or delay, but was indispensable to clear an ambiguity and bridge a genuine evidentiary void. He recognized that leaving such a vital link unexamined would result in an inchoate trial, a flawed presentation of facts, and a potential failure of justice. Thus, the Trial Court recorded its subjective satisfaction regarding the essentiality of the evidence for a just decision of the case, directly fulfilling the mandate of the second part of Section 311 Cr.P.C.

The grievance of the petitioner that the order lacked adequate reasoning is therefore fallacious. The Trial Court's reasoning sufficiently reflects an application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, balancing procedural propriety against the ultimate goal of unearthing the truth.

It is a settled proposition of law that a Revisional Court does not sit as an appellate authority to dissect an order line by line or substitute its own subjective discretion for that of the Trial Judge, so long as the discretion has been exercised soundly and judiciously. Interference with an interlocutory discretionary order under Section 311 is warranted only if there is a gross abuse of discretion, perverse reasoning, or a complete failure of jurisdiction. None of these exceptional vices are made out in the present case.

Guided by the statutory intent of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and the binding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court holds that the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia, committed no error of law, irregularity, or jurisdictional excess in passing the order dated 23.11.2022 in Sessions Case No. 3(1) of 2015.

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition, being devoid of any sustainable legal merit, stands dismissed.

The impugned order dated 23.11.2022 is hereby affirmed.

The Learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 3(1) of 2015 and bring the trial to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

All connected applications stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Case diary, if any, be returned forthwith.

Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court records be transmitted to the Learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.