Trial Court Can Recall Witness After Reserving Case for Judgment Under S. 311 CrPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that merely reserving a criminal case for judgment does not completely prevent a trial court from exercising its power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon or recall a witness when the evidence is considered necessary for a just decision.

Justice Madhu Jain passed the order on August 13, 2026, while dismissing a petition filed by Raman Soni against an order allowing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to examine a witness after the trial court had reserved the matter for judgment.

Background of the Case

The matter arose from a CBI preliminary inquiry registered in 2006 concerning alleged inaction by MCD officials over encroachment on public land. The inquiry later resulted in registration of an RC, and Raman Soni was subsequently named as an accused in the CBI chargesheet filed in 2008.

After final arguments, the trial court reserved the matter for judgment on May 4, 2026. However, the CBI had already moved an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking to examine PW-13, D.S. Verma, on certain aspects that had allegedly been left out during his earlier testimony.

The Special Judge allowed the application on July 8, 2026, granting the CBI one opportunity to examine the witness.

Delhi High Court's Observation

Raman Soni argued that once the case was reserved for judgment, the trial had effectively concluded and the trial court could no longer entertain a Section 311 application.

The High Court rejected this argument in absolute terms. It observed that reservation of a matter for judgment marks the conclusion of the ordinary course of trial, but does not make the court powerless to exercise a jurisdiction expressly granted by law when such action is necessary for a just decision.

"Section 311 CrPC confers wide discretionary powers upon the Court, with the primary object of ensuring that no material evidence is excluded from consideration where its presence is essential for a just decision of the case," the Court held.

The Court further stressed that the provision can be exercised even by the court on its own initiative. The decisive question is whether the proposed evidence is essential for reaching a just decision, while ensuring that neither side suffers serious prejudice.

Decision

The High Court found no merit in the challenge to the trial court's order and held that its exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC was justified.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and the pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

A copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the trial court for necessary compliance.