# Phool Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 467
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3324 of 2025
- **Bench:** Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/phool-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53708
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration

Matter pertains to whether trial court committed
any legal error in rejecting accused's application
u/s 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall and further crossexamination
of
five
already-examined
prosecution witnesses, when said application did
not specify what material questions were left
and
when
evidence
stage
had
already
concluded.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 149, 307,
324,
504,
506
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
ss.
311,
313
-
Revisionist assailing judgment and order
dated 26.05.2025 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, u/s 147, 148, 149, 307,
324, 504, 506 IPC, whereby application
filed
by
accused/revisionist
u/s
311
Cr.P.C.
seeking
recall
of
prosecution
witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 for further crossexamination was rejected by trial court on
grounds
that
all
nine
prosecution
witnesses had already been extensively
cross-examined
and
application
was
vague and lacking in specific reasons -
Revisionist contended that some relevant
questions had inadvertently remained to
be asked prior to stage of recording
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., while trial
court
observed
that
no
substantive
explanation
was
furnished
to
show
necessity
for
recall
and
that
such
application appeared to be attempt to fill
up lacuna in case.
Held: Court is not bound to exercise its power
u/s 311 Cr.P.C. merely because application has
been filed by a party - Power under this
provision is discretionary and cannot be claimed
as matter of right - It should be invoked only
when Court finds that recalling or re-examining
witness is essential for just decision of case -
The term "just decision" underscores principle of
fair trial and proper settlement of dispute
between
the
parties
-
Therefore,
while
exercising this power, Court must act with
caution to ensure that application is not
intended merely to fill lacuna in party's case but
is really essential to pass a justifiable order - In
view of legal principles governing Section 311
Cr.P.C., application filed by accused before Trial
Court merely states that examination of P.W.1
to P.W.5 is complete, but some relevant
questions
remain
to
be
asked,
seeking
permission for their further cross-examination in
interest of justice - Undoubtedly, application is
vague, as it neither specifies material questions
allegedly left unasked during cross-examination
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of fact witnesses nor indicates their relevance,
containing only cursory statement without any
supporting reasons - If application u/s 311
Cr.P.C. lacks substantive and genuine reasons,
and
merely
states
that
certain
relevant
questions inadvertently left unasked, it cannot
justify recalling witnesses for cross-examination
unless it is shown that refusal to do so would
cause serious prejudice to accused - In the
instant case, which is at stage of recording
accused's statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., witnesses'
evidence was recorded long ago - Such
applications are often filed to search out
material contradictions in witnesses' statements
after their memory has faded with passage of
time - There also exists strong possibility of
witnesses being won over during this period,
thereby benefiting accused - Hence, such vague
applications are motivated by intent to secure
contrary depositions by witnesses with their
previous statements recorded before Court.
[Paras 9, 12,13, 14] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar, (2016) 8 SCC
762; Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019)
14 SCC 328 - referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973

List of Keywords
Exhaustive
cross-examination;
Vague
application; Specific questions; Recall; Just
decision; Abuse of process of law; Fair trial;
Serious prejudice to accused; Belated stage;
Ulterior motive; Inconvenience and hardship to
witnesses; Discretionary power of Court; Stage
of recording the statement.

Case Arising From
REVIOSNAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision
No. - 3324 of 2025

From the Judgment

## Text

8 All. Phool Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
467
impugned order suffers from illegality,
infirmity, perversity and lack of judicial
mind. The criminal revision deserves to be
allowed and the impugned order is liable to
be set aside.

20. Accordingly, the criminal revision
is allowed and the impugned order dated
18.4.2025 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bijnor in
case crime no. 113 of 2020, under Sections
323, 504, 308 IPC, Police Station Nehtour,
District Bijnor is set aside and the matter is
remitted to the trial court with the direction
to proceed to frame charges against the
revisionist in accordance with law and in
the light of the observations made in the
present judgment.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 467
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3324 of 2025

Phool Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Avanish Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration

Matter pertains to whether trial court committed
any legal error in rejecting accused's application
u/s 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall and further crossexamination
of
five
already-examined
prosecution witnesses, when said application did
not specify what material questions were left
and
when
evidence
stage
had
already
concluded.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 149, 307,
324,
504,
506
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
ss.
311,
313
-
Revisionist assailing judgment and order
dated 26.05.2025 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, u/s 147, 148, 149, 307,
324, 504, 506 IPC, whereby application
filed
by
accused/revisionist
u/s
311
Cr.P.C.
seeking
recall
of
prosecution
witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 for further crossexamination was rejected by trial court on
grounds
that
all
nine
prosecution
witnesses had already been extensively
cross-examined
and
application
was
vague and lacking in specific reasons -
Revisionist contended that some relevant
questions had inadvertently remained to
be asked prior to stage of recording
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., while trial
court
observed
that
no
substantive
explanation
was
furnished
to
show
necessity
for
recall
and
that
such
application appeared to be attempt to fill
up lacuna in case.
Held: Court is not bound to exercise its power
u/s 311 Cr.P.C. merely because application has
been filed by a party - Power under this
provision is discretionary and cannot be claimed
as matter of right - It should be invoked only
when Court finds that recalling or re-examining
witness is essential for just decision of case -
The term "just decision" underscores principle of
fair trial and proper settlement of dispute
between
the
parties
-
Therefore,
while
exercising this power, Court must act with
caution to ensure that application is not
intended merely to fill lacuna in party's case but
is really essential to pass a justifiable order - In
view of legal principles governing Section 311
Cr.P.C., application filed by accused before Trial
Court merely states that examination of P.W.1
to P.W.5 is complete, but some relevant
questions
remain
to
be
asked,
seeking
permission for their further cross-examination in
interest of justice - Undoubtedly, application is
vague, as it neither specifies material questions
allegedly left unasked during cross-examination
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of fact witnesses nor indicates their relevance,
containing only cursory statement without any
supporting reasons - If application u/s 311
Cr.P.C. lacks substantive and genuine reasons,
and
merely
states
that
certain
relevant
questions inadvertently left unasked, it cannot
justify recalling witnesses for cross-examination
unless it is shown that refusal to do so would
cause serious prejudice to accused - In the
instant case, which is at stage of recording
accused's statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., witnesses'
evidence was recorded long ago - Such
applications are often filed to search out
material contradictions in witnesses' statements
after their memory has faded with passage of
time - There also exists strong possibility of
witnesses being won over during this period,
thereby benefiting accused - Hence, such vague
applications are motivated by intent to secure
contrary depositions by witnesses with their
previous statements recorded before Court.
[Paras 9, 12,13, 14] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar, (2016) 8 SCC
762; Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019)
14 SCC 328 - referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973

List of Keywords
Exhaustive
cross-examination;
Vague
application; Specific questions; Recall; Just
decision; Abuse of process of law; Fair trial;
Serious prejudice to accused; Belated stage;
Ulterior motive; Inconvenience and hardship to
witnesses; Discretionary power of Court; Stage
of recording the statement.

Case Arising From
REVIOSNAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision
No. - 3324 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.05.2025
of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12,
Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 1309 of 2020
of 2022 in Case Crime No. 290 of 2020

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Revisionist:
Avanish Kumar Pandey
Advs. for the Opposite Party:
G.A
(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State on
the point of admission and perused the
record.

2. This criminal revision has been
preferred against the judgement and order
dated 26.5.2025 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Bulandshahr
in Sessions Trial No. 1309 of 2020 of 2022
arising out of case crime no. 290 of 2020
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324,
504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Sikandrabad, District
Bulandshahr whereby the application filed
by the revisionist under Section 311
Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the revisionist that the accused
persons have been cooperative during the
proceeding of trial now the case is fixed for
recording the statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. but some relevant questions were
left over to be asked from the witnesses
P.W.1- Rinku, P.W.2 Gangaram, P.W.3
Dhara, P.W.4 Nepal Singh, P.W.5 Raju @
Arjun and on this ground a prayer was
made to recall the aforesaid witnesses for
their further cross-examination.

4. The said application after hearing
was rejected by the learned trial Court and
the main ground for rejection for the same
was that an exhaustive cross-examination
has already been conducted with all the
nine prosecution witnesses who were
examined by the prosecution and the
learned trial Court also pointed out that the
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is a
vague application as it does not contain the
8 All. Phool Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
469
specific questions which are left over
during cross examination and only in a
cursory manner the present application has
been moved.

5. There is no need to issue notice to
opposite party no.2/ informant.

6. It will be apt to have a glance upon
the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. first.

"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 reexamine any such person if his evidence
appears to it to be essential to the just
decision of the case".

7. The aforesaid provisions make it
explicitly clear that the Court is empowered
at any stage of the trial or other
proceedings to recall or re-examine any
person already examined if the Court
considers
that
the
evidence
of
that
particular person appears to be essential for
the just decision of the case.

8. In the instant case the prayer before
the trial Court was to recall/ re-examine
five witnesses already examined before it
by invoking its power under Section 311
Cr.P.C.

9. The question arises whether the
Court is bound to exercise its power under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. simply because such
an application has been moved by one of
the parties. It is always to be remembered
that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is
the discretionary power of the Court and no
party can claim it as of its right. It is also to
be kept in mind that the Court shall use its
power only when it appears to it that to
recall/ re-examine such witness is essential
for the just decision of the case meaning
thereby and if the said witness/(s) is/are not
re-examined or recall the Court may decide
the case but it would not fall into the
category of 'just decision'. The phrase 'just
decision' is very significant and reminds
the basic principle of a fair trial and a
proper settlement of the dispute between
the parties, hence the Courts while
exercising its power under Section 311
Cr.P.C. should be very cautious and alert
and it should always consider as to whether
such application has been moved only to
fill up the lacuna by either of the parties
and it is really essential to pass a justifiable
order.

10. Reference may be taken of a
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in
State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar, (2016)
8 SCC 762 wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court reiterated the principle behind the
provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. by
holding that interests of victim/ the
collective
(represented
through
the
prosecution) and accused must be balanced.
Concept of fair trial cannot be limitlessly
stretched to permit recall of witnesses
endlessly on ground of magnanimity, etc.

11. In another pronouncement of
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI,
(2019) 14 SCC 328 the nature and scope of
power of Court has been discussed. It was
also clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that power under Section 311 is not to be
exercised if application filed is an abuse of
process of law. Thus, where prosecution
evidence has been closed long back and
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasons for non-examination of a particular
witness
earlier
are
not
satisfactorily
disclosed in the application, re-summoning
of such a witness at a belated stage would
cause great prejudice to the other party and
should not be allowed. Similarly, court
should not encourage filing of successive
applications for recall of a witness under
Section 311.

12. Now in the light of the legal
principle
governing
the
subject
the
application for invoking the power of the
court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by
the accused before the trial Court only
mentions that the evidence of P.W.1-
Rinku, P.W.2 Gangaram, P.W.3 Dhara,
P.W.4 Nepal Singh, P.W.5 Raju @ Arjun is
completed but some relevant and necessary
questions are left over to be asked, hence,
in the interest of justice the accused persons
may be permitted to cross-examine all the
aforesaid five witnesses. Indubitably this is
a
vague
application
which
nowhere
mentions as to what significant questions
are left over to be asked in the crossexamination of the aforesaid witnesses who
are the witnesses of fact and what is their
relevancy as well but only a cursory
statement has been made in the said
application without assigning any reason
behind it.

13. In view of the above, if there are
no
substantive
material
and
genuine
reasons disclosed in the application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. invoking the power of
the Court under the aforesaid provision and
only to mention therein that since some
very relevant questions were leftover
inadvertently which are necessary to bring
on record the witnesses may be recalled for
cross-examination is impermissible without
showing the Court that refusal to do so by
the learned trial Court may result into
serious prejudice to the accused.

14. The case in hand is pending at the
stage of recording the statement of accused
under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the evidence
of the witnesses has been recorded long
before. The court cannot shut its eyes to the
fact that very often the purpose of such
applications is to search out the material
contradictions in the statement of the
witnesses after a long interval and to take
benefit of the situation that the memory of
the witnesses may fade with the passage of
time.

A hard fact also hammers the
mind of this court that there is a strong
possibility of the witnesses to be won over
by the other side during a long span of time
and the accused might be benefited with
this. It will be apt to add that such type of
vague applications on the behest of the
accused are very often filed with the
ulterior motive to have some contrary
deposition by witnesses with their previous
statements recorded before the Court.

15. The case in hand appears to be a
case of the aforesaid category of malafide
motive for the reason as to how an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can
be successesfully meet before the Court to
recall or re-examine a particular witness
without
assigning
any
specific
or
reasonable
reason.
Such
type
of
applications in the firm view of this Court
are illustrative of gross abuse of the process
of the court. The aim of use of its
discretionary power by a court must be to
clear the ends of justice without causing
prejudice to either of the parties. The
inconvenience and hardship caused to a
witness to call him again and again for
8 All. Mohammad Wajir Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
471
evidence to the court is also an additional
factor to be kept in mind by the court.

16. In view of the above, I do not think
that the learned trial Court committed any
legal error by rejecting the application filed
by the revisionist under section 311 Cr.P.C.

17. This revision is, accordingly,
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 471
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14839 of 2025

Mohammad Wajir ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Om Prakash Singh Sisodia, Sunil Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Regulation 228 and 240 does not give an
unbridled, uncanalised power to the police to
use it in such a way which has necessary
consequence of squeezing out the fundamental
freedom of the citizen

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226
-
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Regulations-Regulations 228, 231 &
240 - Only one case has been registered
against the petitioner - no any other
case is pending - Regulation 228 and
240
does
not
give
an
unbridled,
uncanalised power to the police - Police
does not possess a licence to enter the
names of whoever they like or dislike in
the
surveillance
register
-
Representation pursuant to a direction
of this Court has very casually been
rejected
by
the
Superintendent
of
Police - Nothing to substantiate that
the petitioner is involved in the nature
of offence envisaged by Regulation 228
(A) - History sheet No.18-A deserves to
be quashed - Petition Allowed.

Held- No sufficient ground to entertain a
reasonable
belief
that
surveillance
was
required in the case of the petitioner. There
exists no evidence to support the act of
opening of the history sheet No.18-A of the
petitioner at Police Station Bhawaniganj,
District Siddharth nagar and, therefore, it
deserves to be quashed. (Para 14) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Govind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1975 SC, 1378;Malak Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Haryana, AIR 1981 SC, 760

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950, The
Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations

List of Keywords
No criminal history except one case; Historysheet has been opened on the basis of only
one case; No unbridled, uncanalised power
to the police; Squeezing out the fundamental
freedom

Case Arising From
Writ petition has been filed seeking a writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order dated 23.06.2025 passed
by Superintendent of Police, Siddharth nagar
by which the petitioner's representation for
closure of History-sheet no.18 A category
has been rejected.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Om Prakash Singh
Sisodia, Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A

(Delivered by Hon'ble Santosh Rai, J.)