The Gujarat High Court in the case Imran Karimbhai, Madam v. State of Gujarat, wherein the single judge bench in the case observed and reiterated that prosecution witnesses could not be recalled for cross-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that certain important questions were not asked during the cross-examination, The bench headed by Judge Umesh A. Trivedi ob-, served that the petitioner has not mentioned what questions remain to be asked of the said witnesses and thus the petitioner has failed to show that the said court is unable to deliver the judgment without recalling the witnesses. Therefore, the bench dismissed the criminal revision petition. The court denied the revision petition and the order issued by the Additional Sessions Judge on June 2, 2012, which denied the recall of certain prosecution witnesses for cross-examination, which are being examined by the accused. , , Mr. R.D. Chauhan, appearing for the petitioner, argued in court that if the prosecution’s witnesses Nos. 5, 7, and 8 are recalled, because the important questions to be asked of them in cross-examination were left out, and no prejudice is caused to the prosecution, Further, it has been stated by him that during the trial, the accused was granted temporary bail several times, and there was no abuse of the same; therefore, there was no harm in recalling the witnesses. It has also been contended by Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned APP for the state, that there is no valid ground stated by the petitioner to recall the witness, and to fill up the lacuna, no witnesses can be recalled even at the instance of the accused. Furthermore, the court ruled that it was clear that all three witnesses for recall, of whom this application is filed, were cross-examined to the fullest satisfaction of the learned advocate representing the accused, Thus, there being no question of recalling them, and that too, on an application made by the accused after approximately two and a half years of their examination concluded before the court, The court also stated that the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Mohanlal, Shamji Soni v. Union of Indians, which was cited by counsel for the petitioner, does not come to his aid, as the Supreme Court has held that Section 311 empowers the courts to invoke its power in this regard at any stage until the judgment is pronounced, but the court also stated that the power must be used judiciously and not arbitrarily. The court correctly concludes that the learned “Judge” believes that no witness can be recalled at the request of the accused, either to fill a void or with the change of an advocate. As a result, the court dismissed the revision petition.
