Summary
The Court allowed recall of a complainant-witness to address similarity between allegedly stolen company data and material found on the accused’s hard disks. The need arose after the forensic expert’s later testimony, and the recall request followed within five days. Further cross-examination would protect the accused, while fixed timelines would address delay.
Issues
- Whether the later forensic testimony justified recalling a witness already examined.
- Whether recall would unfairly prejudice the accused or delay the trial.
Provisions considered
- Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Recall was justified because the relevant data-comparison issue arose after the appellant’s initial evidence and was material to a just determination. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- Section 311 combines broad discretion with a duty to obtain evidence essential to a just decision. Recall requires strong, valid reasons and careful consideration of prejudice and delay, rather than routine permission or an abstract invocation of fairness. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- The appellant had no earlier occasion to address the pertinent similarity issue, which emerged only when the forensic expert testified. In these particular circumstances the request to recall him was justified. (¶¶ 4, 12)
- The accused could cross-examine the recalled witness, providing adequate protection against prejudice. Their concern about delay could be met by directions fixing the time for recall and trial completion. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; lower court orders set aside and recall application allowed. Further examination on a trial-court date within six weeks; trial to conclude within nine months of receipt of the judgment. Pending applications disposed of.