Synopsis

The applicant/accused sought to summon two witnesses – the Superintendent of CBI (ACB), Nagpur and the Director of CFSL, CBI, New Delhi – as defence witnesses under Section 311 CrPC after the conclusion of prosecution evidence, recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC, and at the stage of final arguments. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that: (i) the power under Section 311 CrPC, though wide, must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily; (ii) the application was filed belatedly to fill lacunae and protract the trial; (iii) the proposed witnesses were not material – the forensic expert (Senior Scientific Officer) had already been examined and cross-examined as PW3, and the Superintendent had no role in the investigation; (iv) the accused had stated before the trial court that he did not wish to examine any defence witnesses; (v) the explanation for delay (lack of communication with counsel) was false as the counsel was present on the date of recording Section 313 statement.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay nagpur bench, nagpur

Criminal revision application no. 103 of 2026

Ajay kumar (applicant) vs. Central bureau of investigation, nagpur (non-applicant)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice m.m. nerlikar

Core Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 311 – Power to summon material witness or examine person present – Scope of discretion – Timing of application – Principles for allowing recall of witnesses.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Nerlikar (Single Judge)
Date of Judgment: June 9, 2026
Case No.: Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 2026
Citation: Not reported (unreported)

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 311 (power to summon material witness, recall and re-examine any person)

• Constitution of India – Article 21 (right to fair trial)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether an application under Section 311 CrPC filed after recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC and at the stage of final arguments, seeking to summon supervisory officers (who had no direct role in investigation or forensic analysis) as defence witnesses, should be allowed, and what are the parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 311 CrPC.

Key legal principles applied:

• Section 311 CrPC – wide but not unguided discretion: The court has vast powers under Section 311 CrPC to summon any person as a witness at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding. However, this power must be exercised judiciously, with care, caution and circumspection, and not arbitrarily or to fill lacun

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.