LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws. This blog is only for information but not for legal opinions

Just for legal information but not form as legal opinion

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

Earlier recall application – Already allowed Complainant had earlier availed recall under Section 311; subsequent application after recording of accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC and at stage of final arguments unjustified. (Paras 8–9) Invoices – Not automatically admissible Production of invoices alone insufficient; complainant would need to re‑examine himself to prove them, leading to retrial and delay. (Para 10) Fair trial vs delay Recall permissible only if fairness of trial demonstrably suffers; mere convenience or filling lacunae not grounds. Delay in trial is relevant factor. (Paras 9–10)

  Bombay High Court ruling in Niketan Dilip Paldhe v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 3369 of 2022, decided 29 November 2022):

Headnotes 

  1. Section 311 CrPC – Recall of witness Power under Section 311 CrPC is discretionary, exercised only when recall is essential to secure a just decision; not a matter of course. (Paras 9–10)

  2. Cross‑examination statement – No right created Complainant’s willingness in cross‑examination to produce invoices does not confer a right to file recall application under Section 311. (Paras 2, 9)

  3. Earlier recall application – Already allowed Complainant had earlier availed recall under Section 311; subsequent application after recording of accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC and at stage of final arguments unjustified. (Paras 8–9)

  4. Invoices – Not automatically admissible Production of invoices alone insufficient; complainant would need to re‑examine himself to prove them, leading to retrial and delay. (Para 10)

  5. Fair trial vs delay Recall permissible only if fairness of trial demonstrably suffers; mere convenience or filling lacunae not grounds. Delay in trial is relevant factor. (Paras 9–10)

  6. Varsha Garg case – Distinguished SC ruling in Varsha Garg v. State of M.P. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 986) distinguished; in that case documents were crucial and no prior recall had been allowed. (Para 11)

  7. Impugned order quashed Magistrate’s order dated 01.08.2022 allowing recall for production of invoices set aside; writ petition allowed. (Paras 12–13)