SATBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 723 · Decided: 29-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 723 : 2023 INSC 786
723
CASE DETAILS
SATBIR SINGH
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2634 of 2023)
AUGUST 29, 2023
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND S. V. N. BHATTI, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Courts below, if justiﬁ ed in rejecting the 
application of the appellant u/s.311, CrPC for his recall as a witness in the 
trial for further examination.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Power under – 
Exercise of – Appellant ﬁ led complaint that the accused-ex-employees 
of his company had stolen company data and used it to manufacture 
equipment, which was manufactured by his company – Evidence of the 
appellant was recorded before the CFSL Report came – Though, the 
CFSL expert in his examination described the data found on the hard 
disk(s) of the accused but there was no reference as to the comparison 
of the two sets of data – Application ﬁ led by appellant u/s.311, rejected 
– Legality:
Held: Discretionary power like s.311 is to enable the Court to keep the 
record straight and to clear any ambiguity regarding the evidence, whilst also 
ensuring no prejudice is caused to anyone – It should be invoked when it is 
essential for the just decision of the case – On facts, the request for recall 
of the appellant u/s.311 was justiﬁ ed, as at the relevant point of time in his 
initial deposition, there was no occasion for him to bring the relevant facts 
relating to similarity of data before the Court, which arose after the CFSL 
expert was examined – Orders of the Courts below set aside – Application 
of the appellant u/s.311 for his recall to be further examined as a witness 
allowed. [Paras 10-12, 14]
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat (2017) 9 SCC 340 : [2017] 8 SCR 682; Manju 
Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2019) 6 SCC 203 : [2019] 6 SCR 68; Swapan 
Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328 
: [2019] 3 SCR 713; Harendra Rai v State of Bihar 2023 SCC OnLine SC 
1023 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2634 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2021 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 40058 of 2021.
Appearances:
Gaurav Agrawal, Sahil Tagotra, Chritarth Palli, Advs. for the Appellant.
Anil Kumar Yadav, Addl. Adv. Gen., Dr. Monika Gusain, Mithilesh 
Kumar Singh, Bacha Babu Mistry, Mrs. Manju Singh, Ashutosh Kumar 
Singh, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal has been ﬁ led against the order dated 14.12.2021 
in CRMM No.40058/2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned 
Order”) passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh 
(hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”), by which the prayer for recall 
of the appellant as a witness in the trial before the Court below for further 
examination has been rejected. 
725
4. The brief facts relating to the case are that the appellant made a 
complaint against the accused that they, being ex-employees of his company, 
had stolen company data and used such data to manufacture equipment, 
which was being manufactured by the appellant’s company. During 
trial, before the Report from the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory, 
Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “CFSL”) could come, the evidence 
of the appellant was recorded. However, when the CFSL expert who had 
prepared the Report was examined on 20.08.2021 by the Court, though 
he described the data which was found on the hard disk(s) of the accused, 
but there was no reference as to whether they were comparable to/same in 
regard to what was allegedly stolen from the appellant’s company. Thus, 
under the circumstances, the appellant was constrained to apply for his recall 
as a witness, which was done within ﬁ ve days of the evidence of the CFSL 
expert being recorded i.e., on 25.08.2021. The same having been rejected, 
by the Trial Court and the High Court, the matter is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no 
previous occasion for him during the course of the trial to put any question 
with regard to comparison of data as the CFSL expert had clearly taken a 
stand that he had not submitted any report with regard t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.