Supreme Court Limits Witness Summons Under Section 311 CrPC in CBI Case: Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. CBI (2019)

Date of the Judgment: January 04, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 15

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a trial court repeatedly allow the prosecution to summon a witness, especially when the prosecution has failed to produce the witness multiple times over many years? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, setting important limits on the power to summon witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court emphasized the need for timely trials and the prevention of abuse of legal processes.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint lodged by Mr. P.N. Khanna with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Calcutta on August 20, 1983. The appellant, Swapan Kumar Chatterjee, along with others, was accused of offenses under Sections 477A, 471, 468, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 5(1)(c)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

After the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused, and the trial commenced. Twenty-nine prosecution witnesses were examined. The prosecution then sought to examine a handwriting expert, Mr. H.S. Tuteja. The Trial Court allowed this request and scheduled his examination for March 24, 2004, and then March 26, 2004. However, Mr. Tuteja did not appear. The prosecution requested more time, and the court rescheduled the examination for May 10-12, 2004. Again, Mr. Tuteja failed to appear.

Over the next thirteen years, the prosecution repeatedly sought to summon Mr. Tuteja, and the court repeatedly allowed these requests, despite his continued absence. The High Court of Calcutta had even given a “last opportunity” to the CBI in 2011 to procure his attendance, warning that the trial would proceed without him if he did not appear. Despite this, the prosecution continued to seek adjournments and to summon Mr. Tuteja, who remained absent.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially allowed the prosecution’s request to examine Mr. H.S. Tuteja in 2004. Despite repeated failures by Mr. Tuteja to appear, the Trial Court continued to grant the prosecution’s requests for summons. The High Court of Calcutta, in CRR No. 3436 of 2006, on July 28, 2011, gave a last opportunity to the CBI to produce Mr. Tuteja, stating that the trial would proceed without him if he failed to appear.

Despite this, the Trial Court continued to allow the prosecution time to present Mr. Tuteja. The High Court, in Criminal Revision Application No. 2696 of 2014, on September 15, 2014, again directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months. However, the Trial Court once again allowed the prosecution’s application to summon Mr. Tuteja on December 5, 2014. The High Court confirmed this order on May 4, 2017, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section empowers the court to summon any person as a witness, examine any person in attendance, or recall and re-examine any person already examined. The section reads as follows:

“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.—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 noted that the first part of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, grants discretionary power to the court, while the second part imposes a mandatory obligation to summon or recall a witness if their evidence is essential for a just decision.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the repeated summoning of Mr. H.S. Tuteja was an abuse of the process of law. They contended that the prosecution had been given numerous opportunities to present the witness, and their failure to do so over many years should not be allowed to further delay the trial. They emphasized that the High Court itself had given a last opportunity to the CBI to produce the witness in 2011, and the trial court’s subsequent actions were contrary to this direction.

The respondent, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), argued that the evidence of Mr. H.S. Tuteja was crucial for the case and that the court had the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon any witness at any stage of the trial. They contended that the interest of justice required that Mr. Tuteja’s evidence be recorded.

The Supreme Court did not provide a detailed breakdown of sub-submissions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the prosecution’s application to summon Mr. H.S. Tuteja, given the history of the case and the repeated failures of the prosecution to produce him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions of both parties and the relevant legal provisions.

The Court held that the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be invoked only to meet the ends of justice and should be exercised with great caution. It should not be used to allow the prosecution to repeatedly attempt to produce a witness they have failed to present over many years.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair and speedy trial, prevent abuse of the legal process, and uphold the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should not be used to indefinitely prolong trials or cause undue prejudice to the accused. The repeated failure of the prosecution to produce Mr. H.S. Tuteja, despite multiple opportunities, weighed heavily against allowing further summons.

Ratio of Fact:Law

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of the factual history of the case and the legal interpretation of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court considered the repeated failures of the prosecution to produce the witness (fact) and the need to exercise the power under Section 311 judiciously (law).

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allows courts to summon witnesses at any stage of the trial. However, the court rejected this interpretation in the context of the present case, emphasizing that the power under Section 311 must be exercised with caution and not to cause prejudice to the accused. The court noted that the prosecution had been given numerous opportunities to produce the witness, and their failure to do so over many years should not be allowed to further delay the trial. The court’s final decision was based on the need to balance the interest of justice with the rights of the accused to a fair and speedy trial.

The Supreme Court’s decision was that the Trial Court’s order allowing the prosecution to summon Mr. H.S. Tuteja was incorrect. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be exercised cautiously and not to cause prejudice to the accused.

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

• The prosecution had been given multiple opportunities to produce the witness.
• The High Court had previously given a “last opportunity” to the CBI to produce the witness.
• The repeated failure of the prosecution to produce the witness over many years indicated an abuse of the process of law.
• Allowing further summons would cause undue prejudice to the accused and delay the trial further.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection.”

“Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non-examination of the witness earlier is not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed.”

“In our view, the High Court ought to have accepted the appeal and rejected the application of the prosecution for summoning the witness, Mr. H.S. Tuteja.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the need to balance the interest of justice with the rights of the accused to a fair and speedy trial. The Court found that allowing the prosecution to repeatedly summon a witness they had failed to produce over many years would be an abuse of the process of law and cause undue prejudice to the accused.

The decision has potential implications for future cases by setting a precedent that limits the prosecution’s ability to repeatedly summon witnesses when they have failed to produce them despite multiple opportunities. This decision reinforces the need for timely trials and prevents the abuse of legal processes.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. Instead, it applied existing principles of law to the facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• The power to summon witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not unlimited and must be exercised judiciously.
• Courts should not allow the prosecution to repeatedly summon witnesses when they have failed to produce them despite multiple opportunities.
• The need for timely trials and the prevention of abuse of legal processes are paramount.
• The rights of the accused to a fair and speedy trial must be protected.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the orders of the High Court dated 04.05.2017 and the Trial Court dated 05.12.2014. The application filed by the Prosecutor for summoning Mr. H.S. Tuteja was dismissed.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers courts to summon witnesses, this power must be exercised judiciously and not to cause prejudice to the accused. The court emphasized that the prosecution cannot repeatedly summon a witness when they have failed to produce them despite multiple opportunities. This decision reinforces the need for timely trials and prevents the abuse of legal processes. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Supreme Court has clarified the application of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion

In the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court held that the Trial Court was not justified in allowing the prosecution’s application to summon Mr. H.S. Tuteja, given the history of the case and the repeated failures of the prosecution to produce him. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be exercised cautiously and not to cause prejudice to the accused. This judgment sets a precedent that limits the prosecution’s ability to repeatedly summon witnesses when they have failed to produce them despite multiple opportunities, reinforcing the need for timely trials and preventing abuse of legal processes.