Allahabad High Court
MAMTA DEVIversusSTATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
A belated application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall a witness is not maintainable, and the criminal revision is dismissed.
Summary
The revisionist Mamta Devi filed a criminal revision under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to recall and further examine the complainant (PW‑1). The trial court had rejected the application, noting that the examination‑in‑chief of the witness was completed on 22‑Nov‑2021 and 5‑Apr‑2022, and cross‑examination concluded only on 13‑Oct‑2025, resulting in a four‑year gap. The revisionist argued that the rejection prejudiced her right to a fair trial, while the State, represented by the Advocate General, contended that the application was filed at an inordinate delay and was intended to stall the proceedings. The High Court examined the record, observed that the trial court’s order was detailed and well‑reasoned, and emphasized that no party is entitled to unlimited opportunities to recall a witness. Consequently, the Court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court’s decision and dismissed the criminal revision. The judgment underscores the principle that procedural delays cannot be used to revive settled witness testimony.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling a witness can be entertained after a prolonged delay of several years.
- Whether the criminal revision filed by the revisionist is maintainable in view of the delay and the trial court's detailed order.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 311
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Section 311
- Witness recall
- Revision
- Delay
- Fair trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1062 of 2026
Mamta Devi
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Someshwar Pandey, Vinod Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist filed an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall and further examination
of the complainant/P.W.-1. The said application was rejected by the learned
trial court. It is contended that such rejection would cause serious prejudice
to the revisionist and adversely affect his right to a fair trial.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the aforesaid sessions trial has
been pending since 2017. The statement of P.W.-1 was recorded on
22.11.2021 and 05.04.2022. Thereafter, the cross-examination was
concluded on 13.10.2025. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has
been filed at a highly belated stage with a view to delay the proceedings;
therefore, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
4. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned trial court has
passed a detailed, speaking, and well-reasoned order. It has specifically
recorded that the examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 was concluded on
22.11.2021 and 05.04.2022. Thereafter, the accused persons took more than
three years to conclude the cross-examination, which was ultimately
completed on 13.10.2025. Thus, approximately four years were consumed in
recording the statement of the complainant/P.W.-1 from 22.11.2021 to
13.10.2025.
5. Sufficient opportunity had been afforded to the revisionist to cross-
CRLR No. 1062 of 2026
2
examine and lead evidence. No litigant can claim unlimited time to recall a
witness again and again for further deposition.
6. In view thereof, neither there is any illegality nor irregularity in the
impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is
dismissed accordingly.
February 26, 2026
M. Tarik
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…