Supreme Court allows recall of witnesses for crucial evidence in corruption case: State vs. Seenivasagan (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 1 March 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 120

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M R Shah, J.

Can a court refuse to recall witnesses whose testimony is essential for a just decision, especially when crucial evidence needs to be presented? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of corruption against a Chief Engineer. The Court’s decision clarifies the scope of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), emphasizing the importance of ensuring that all necessary evidence is on record to achieve a fair outcome.

The case revolves around the prosecution’s attempt to introduce a document showing the approval of the Board of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Limited (TANGEDCO) for sanctioning the prosecution of the accused. The trial court had rejected the prosecution’s application to recall witnesses to present this document. The Supreme Court, however, overturned this decision, highlighting the need for a just and comprehensive trial process. The judgment was authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

On 13 July 2010, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against Tr N Seenivasagan (the respondent), a Chief Engineer at TANGEDCO, and another individual under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The allegation was that the respondent had demanded a bribe to revoke the suspension of an employee.

On 28 June 2011, the Chairman cum Managing Director of TANGEDCO granted sanction to prosecute the respondent and the co-accused under the PC Act. The prosecution claimed that this sanction was given on behalf of the Board of TANGEDCO. Following the investigation, a final report was filed on 27 July 2011, charging the respondent under Sections 7, 12, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

During the trial, several witnesses were examined, including PW-1, the Chairman of TANGEDCO, and PW-11, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The prosecution closed its evidence on 31 October 2017, and the case was set for final arguments.

The arguments were prolonged, and the presiding officer was transferred on 25 June 2018. The prosecution then filed applications on 11 February 2019, to recall PW-1 and PW-11 to present a document showing the Board of TANGEDCO’s approval for the prosecution. The trial court dismissed these applications on 19 February 2019, leading to the appeal to the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the prosecution’s applications to recall PW-1 and PW-11, citing the delay in filing these applications. The prosecution had sought to introduce a crucial document showing that the Board of TANGEDCO had approved the sanction to prosecute the respondent. The Trial Court held that the applications were filed belatedly.

The prosecution then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, agreeing that the applications were filed too late. The High Court also noted the earlier evidence of PWs 1 and 11.

The State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, set aside the High Court’s order, allowing the recall of the witnesses.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This section grants the court the power to summon any person as a witness, examine any person in attendance, or recall and re-examine any person already examined. The key phrase in this section is that the court can do so “if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

Section 311 of the CrPC states:

“Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to mean that the court’s power to recall witnesses is very wide, but it must be exercised judiciously. The court must be satisfied that recalling the witness is essential for a just decision. The power is not to be used to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution or defense, but to ensure that all necessary evidence is on record.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the document showing the Board of TANGEDCO’s approval was crucial to prove that the sanction to prosecute the respondent was valid. They contended that the order of sanction, already marked as Exhibit P-1, referred to the Board’s approval, and the document they sought to introduce was the actual record of that approval. The prosecution argued that recalling PW-1 and PW-11 was essential to mark this document as evidence. The prosecution also explained that the delay in filing the applications was due to the transfer of the Special Public Prosecutor.

The defense, on the other hand, argued that the applications to recall the witnesses were filed belatedly. They also pointed out that the document the prosecution wanted to introduce did not have the signatures of the Board members. Furthermore, the defense contended that PW-1, the Chairman of TANGEDCO, had stated in his deposition that he had granted the sanction without reference to the Board, and that he was entitled to do so under the PC Act.

The key arguments can be summarized as follows:

• Prosecution:
  • The document showing the Board’s approval is essential for a just decision.
  • The delay in filing the application was due to the transfer of the Public Prosecutor.
  • The order of sanction already in evidence refers to the Board’s approval.
• Defense:
  • The applications to recall witnesses were filed belatedly.
  • The document lacks the signatures of the Board members.
  • PW-1 had stated that he sanctioned the prosecution without Board approval.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the prosecution’s applications under Section 311 of the CrPC to recall PW-1 and PW-11 to mark the document pertaining to the approval granted by the Board of TANGEDCO.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court should have allowed the applications for recall of PW-1 and PW-11. The Court emphasized that the key consideration under Section 311 of the CrPC is whether the evidence of the witness is essential for the just decision of the case.

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several previous judgments to interpret Section 311 of the CrPC. These cases provide guidance on the scope and application of the power to recall witnesses.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the authorities and emphasized the importance of Section 311 of the CrPC in ensuring a just decision. The court observed that the power under Section 311 is very wide and should be exercised judiciously to ensure that all necessary evidence is brought on record. The Court held that the Trial Court should not have rejected the application to recall witnesses solely based on the delay in filing the application.

The Court specifically addressed how each authority was viewed:

• Manju Devi v State of Rajasthan [(2019) 6 SCC 203]: The Supreme Court followed this authority, emphasizing that the length of a case cannot override the need for a just decision with all necessary evidence.
• Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India [1991 Supp (1) SCC 271], Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 4 SCC 158], Mina Lalita Baruwa v. State of Orissa [(2013) 16 SCC 173], Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar [(2013) 14 SCC 461] and Natasha Singh v. CBI [(2013) 5 SCC 741]: The Supreme Court relied on these authorities to underscore the wide discretionary power of the court under Section 311 of CrPC to ensure a just decision.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a just decision in the case. The Court emphasized that the document sought to be introduced by the prosecution was crucial for determining whether the sanction to prosecute the respondent was valid. The Court also noted that the defense had taken a specific stand that the sanction was not issued by the Board, making the document even more critical.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the broad scope of Section 311 of the CrPC, which allows the court to recall witnesses at any stage of the proceedings if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The Court held that the Trial Court should not have rejected the application solely based on the delay in filing the application.

The Court rejected the argument that the application should be rejected solely based on delay. It emphasized that the primary concern should be to ensure that all necessary evidence is on record to achieve a just decision.

The Court quoted from its previous judgment in Natasha Singh v. CBI [(2013) 5 SCC 741]:

“The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case.”

The Court also noted that:

“The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.”

The Court further stated:

“In the present case, the prosecution has sought to produce a copy of the relevant document pertaining to the approval granted by the Board of TANGEDCO on the record and to have it marked as an exhibit in the evidence, for which purpose PWs 1 and 11 were sought to be recalled.”

Key Takeaways

• Section 311 of the CrPC is a crucial provision that allows the court to recall witnesses for essential evidence at any stage of the proceedings.
• Delay in filing an application to recall witnesses should not be the sole ground for rejection if the evidence is essential for a just decision.
• The primary objective of a trial is to discover the truth and ensure a fair outcome, which may require recalling witnesses to present all necessary evidence.
• Courts must exercise their discretionary powers under Section 311 judiciously and not arbitrarily.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and allowed the prosecution’s applications to recall PW-1 and PW-11. The Court also directed that the trial be completed by 31 July 2021, given the long pendency of the case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms the principles underlying Section 311 of the CrPC, emphasizing that the power to recall witnesses is essential for ensuring a just decision. The Court clarified that the length of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring a just decision after taking all the necessary and material evidence on record. The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Court must allow recall of witnesses if their evidence is essential for a just decision and the delay cannot be the sole ground to reject the application.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of ensuring a fair and just trial. By allowing the prosecution to recall witnesses and present crucial evidence, the Court has reinforced the principles of Section 311 of the CrPC. The judgment highlights that the pursuit of justice should not be hindered by procedural delays and that all necessary evidence must be considered to arrive at a just decision. This judgment serves as an important reminder of the court’s duty to ensure a comprehensive and fair trial process.