Summary
After repeated failures over many years to produce a handwriting expert, the prosecution again obtained permission to summon him after defence evidence had begun. The Supreme Court held that the repeated opportunities, earlier last-chance direction and prolonged trial made further indulgence unjustified. It quashed the orders permitting examination and dismissed the prosecution’s application, without deciding the criminal charges.
Issues
- Whether repeated belated applications to summon the absent prosecution expert should have been allowed.
- How the discretionary and mandatory limbs of Section 311 operate.
Provisions considered
- Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The power to summon essential evidence must serve justice and be exercised cautiously for strong reasons; it could not justify the repeated indulgence on these facts. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- Section 311 first permits summoning, examination and recall at any stage, and then mandates it where evidence is essential to a just decision. Its broad powers require caution, valid reasons and attention to abuse and prejudice. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Despite repeated allowed applications, the prosecution failed to produce the expert. Further permission disregarded the High Court’s last-opportunity direction and subsequent direction to expedite a decades-old trial. The application should have been rejected. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The Trial Court and High Court orders were quashed and the prosecution’s application to summon H.S. Tuteja dismissed. (¶ 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; orders permitting examination quashed and prosecution’s application to summon H.S. Tuteja dismissed.