The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a mere change of counsel does not justify the recall of a witness in a criminal trial. In the recent case of *M/S Steel Rocks INC vs. M/S Bangalore Elevated*, Justice M. Nagaprasanna clarified that any application to recall a witness must detail the specific reasons why the witness is necessary for the case, particularly if that witness has already been examined.
The Court emphasized that such applications, governed by Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC, now updated to BNSS), should be considered on a case-by-case basis, focusing on whether not recalling the witness would lead to a failure of justice. Additionally, the Court noted that recalling witnesses at the end of a trial is generally discouraged.
Justice Nagaprasanna stated, “Mere change of counsel cannot be a valid ground for recalling a witness. The application must outline the reasons for the recall. Recalling witnesses late in the trial should not be permitted.” This ruling aligns with the broader principles set forth by the Supreme Court regarding the recall of witnesses.
The case arose from a 2017 cheque bouncing complaint where the witness in question was an employee of the complainant company. The complaint was filed against two entities and their representatives for issuing a bounced cheque related to advance payments for incomplete roadwork. The defense had previously cross-examined the witness twice—in 2019 and 2021.
In January 2024, after their previous lawyer passed away in 2023, the accused engaged a new attorney who identified gaps in the prior cross-examination and filed a request to recall the witness. The trial court, however, rejected this application, leading the accused to challenge the decision in the High Court via a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The High Court found no merit in the petition, observing that the accused had already been afforded two opportunities to cross-examine the witness. The Court then directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, mandating completion within four months due to the lengthy duration of the case.
In closing, the High Court reiterated the importance of timely and efficient resolution of legal matters, particularly in cases that have been pending for an extended period. Advocate K.N. Karunashankar represented the petitioners, while Advocate Sridhar Prabhu represented the respondents.
