GODREJ PACIFIC TECH. LTD. versus COMPUTER JOINT INDIA LTD.

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 30-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 571 
.. 
GODREJ PACIFIC TECH. LTD. 
A 
v. 
COMPUTER JOINT INDIA LTD. 
(Criminal. Appeal No. 1181 of 2008) 
JULY 30, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s. 311 - Object, na-
ture and scope of - Re-examination of witness sought - re-
;ected by courts below - On appeal, held: In the facts of the c 
case, re-examination of the witness should have been allowed 
- The object of the provision is to save failure of justice on 
accou!Jf of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evi-
dence - The provision gives vety. wide powers and applies to 
all the proceedings, enquiries and trials under Cr.PC. 
D 
Appellant filed an application seeking re-examination 
' ,;( 
of the witnesses in terms of s. 311 Cr.P.C. Trial court re-
jected the application. High Court upheld the rejection. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. In view of the facts of the case, trial court 
ought to have permitted the prayer of the appellant. High 
Court should not have declined to interfere with the or-
der of the trial court. [Para 12] [577 8-C] 
F 
2.1 The object underlying Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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 exam-
ined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is G 
essential to the just decision of the case. The object is to bring 
on record evidence not' only from the point of view of the ac-
cused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of 
the orderly society. [Paras 8 and 10] [575 E-F 576 F-G] 
571 
H 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 11 S.C.R. 
A 
2.2 Section 311 Cr.P.C. is manifestly in two parts. 
Whereas the word used in the first part is "may", the sec-
ond part uses "shall". In consequence, the first part gives 
purely discretionary authority to a criminal court and en-
ables it at any stage of an enquiry, trial or proceeding un-
B der Cr.P.C. (a) to summon anyone as a witness, or (b) to 
examine any person present in the court, or (c) to recall 
and re-examine any person whose evidence has already 
been recorded. On the· other hand, the second part is man-
datory and compels the court to take any of the aforemen-
C tioned steps if the new evidence appears to it essential to 
the justdecision of the case. [Para 7] [574 G- 575-B] 
2.3 This is a supplementary provision enabling, and 
in certain circumstances imposing on the court the duty 
of examining a material witness who would not be other-
D wise brought before it. It is couched in the· widest pos.: 
sible terms -and calls Jor no limitation, either with regard 
l 
to the ;~tage .at which the powers of the court should be 
> ,, 
exercis~d, or with regard to the manner in-which it should 
be exercised. The Section is a general Section which ap-
E plies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under Cr.P.C. 
and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any 
wit~ess at any stage of such proceedings, trial or.enquiry. 
In. the Section, the significant expression that occurs is 
"at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding . 
F 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 
grea.ter is the necessity for application of judicial mind. 
G [Paras 7 and sj [515 B-H 576-A] _ -
· 
2.4 It is not only the prerogative but also the plain 
duty of a court to examine such of those witnesses as it 
considers absolutely necessary for doing justice between 
the State and the subject. There is a duty cast upon the 
H. _court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of 
. .. 
, 
-
~ 
·' 
... 
~. 
GODREJ PACIFIC TECH. LTD. v. COMPUTER 
573 
JOINT INDIA LTD. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
such means is the examination of witnesses of its own 
accord when for certain obvious reasons either party is 
not prepared to call witnesses who are known to be in a 
position to speak important relevant facts. Whether the 
new evidence is essential or not must depend on the facts 
of each case, and has to be determined by the Presiding 
Judge. [Paras 7 and 9] [575 C-D 576-F] · 
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra 1967 
(3) SCR 415; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr. v. State of 
Gujarat and Ors. 2006 (3)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.