Section 311 CrPC Can Be Invoked Even After a Trial Court Reserves a Case for Judgment, Rules Delhi High Court
Justice Madhu Jain held that reserving a matter for judgment does not render a trial court functus officio for the purpose of recalling a witness under Section 311 CrPC, dismissing a challenge by the sole surviving accused in an MCD encroachment case against the CBI.
The Delhi High Court on 13 August 2026 dismissed a petition filed by Raman Soni, a 69-year-old accused in a CBI case arising from alleged encroachment on MCD public land, who challenged a Special Court order allowing the CBI to recall a prosecution witness after final arguments had concluded and the matter had been reserved for judgment. Justice Madhu Jain, sitting singly, held that the mere reservation of a case for judgment does not, by itself, operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court found that as long as the evidence sought to be recalled is essential for a just decision, the trial court retains jurisdiction to act under Section 311 CrPC, and the Special Court's order warranted no interference.
The CBI Case and the Accused's Position at Trial
The case originates from a preliminary inquiry registered by the CBI on 10 May 2006 concerning the alleged failure of MCD officials to take action against encroachment upon public land, which allegedly resulted in pecuniary advantage to private builders. The preliminary inquiry culminated in registration of RC SIB 2006E0009.
Raman Soni was not initially named in the RC but was subsequently arrayed as an accused in the chargesheet filed by the CBI on 28 November 2008, along with certain MCD officials and private persons. By the time the matter reached its final stages, Soni had become the sole surviving accused facing trial. The public servants who allegedly formed the core of the conspiracy were discharged by orders dated 3 February 2021 and 5 April 2022, while proceedings against the remaining accused stood abated on account of their death during the prolonged pendency of the trial.
The trial court listed the matter for final arguments on 20 April 2026, 28 April 2026, and 4 May 2026. On 4 May 2026, final arguments concluded and the matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment. It was thereafter listed for 14 May 2026 and 25 May 2026.
The Section 311 Application That Triggered the Challenge
On 4 June 2026 — after the matter had been reserved for judgment — the CBI moved an application under Section 311 CrPC before the Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-06, Rouse Avenue Courts. The application sought to recall and further examine PW-13, D.S. Verma, on the ground that certain aspects of his testimony had been inadvertently left out during his earlier examination on 30 July 2025.
Instead of rejecting the application at the threshold, the Special Judge issued notice to the petitioner. Soni filed his reply on 1 July 2026 and the matter was argued. On 8 July 2026, the Special Judge allowed the application orally in open court, followed by a written order the same evening.
The written order acknowledged that the CBI had been “lackadaisical in moving the present application and in recording of the testimony of the said witness,” but held that the trial or its outcome could not be hindered on that account. It directed that only one opportunity would be granted to the CBI to examine PW-13.
Soni challenged the impugned order before the Delhi High Court in CRL.M.C. 4892/2026.
Petitioner's Contention: Trial Court Became Functus Officio
Counsel for Soni advanced two principal contentions. The first was jurisdictional: once the matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment on 4 May 2026, the trial came to an end and the Special Court became functus officio. The only judicial act remaining was delivery of the verdict. Section 311 CrPC, which permits the court to summon or recall a witness “at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding,” could not extend to a stage after formal reservation for judgment because there was no longer a pending trial within the meaning of the provision.
The second contention was that the application moved by the CBI disclosed no legally sustainable or bona fide reason for the recall. The sole ground offered was inadvertence — that certain aspects had been left out during PW-13's examination. Counsel argued that this was insufficient to invoke the extraordinary power under Section 311 CrPC, and that the Special Court committed a grave error in accepting a blanket plea of inadvertence.
Soni's counsel placed reliance on Central Bureau of Investigation v. R. Vasudevan & Ors., MANU/DE/3599/2024, Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328, State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed, 2026 INSC 584, and Rajkumar Ahirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5370, all said to support the proposition that Section 311 power cannot be exercised at such a belated stage.
CBI's Answer: Legislative Intent and Available Evidence
The Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI stressed the legislative intent behind Section 311 CrPC. The legislature had consciously used the expression “at any stage,” reflecting a mandate to ensure that the best available evidence comes before the trial court.
The SPP drew support from Section 391 CrPC, which permits an appellate court to take additional evidence even at the appellate stage where it considers such evidence necessary. Read conjointly, Sections 311 and 391 CrPC demonstrated that the legislative intent was to prevent any court from remaining a mute spectator where material evidence had been left out.
The SPP also distinguished the present case from situations where entirely new or additional documents are sought to be introduced. Here, PW-13's statement was already on record; what was sought was only to elicit certain aspects that had been inadvertently omitted during his earlier examination. The SPP relied on Shubham Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025:DHC:970; Ashok Chikara v. Central Bureau of Investigation, order dated 23 April 2025 in CRL.M.C. 3511/2023; Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 5 SCC 741; and Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6 SCC 110.
In rebuttal, counsel for Soni pointed out that none of the judgments cited by the SPP dealt with a case where the matter had already been reserved for pronouncement of judgment.
How the High Court Reasoned
Justice Madhu Jain identified the principal question as whether the trial court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 311 CrPC after the matter had been reserved for judgment and, if so, whether that exercise warranted interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution read with the relevant CrPC provisions.
On the functus officio argument, the court was direct. Reservation of a matter for judgment marks the conclusion of the ordinary course of trial but does not render the court powerless to exercise a jurisdiction expressly conferred by the Code where the court is satisfied that such exercise is necessary for a just decision. The mere fact that the matter stood reserved cannot, by itself, operate as an absolute bar to Section 311 CrPC.
The court pointed to the text of Section 311 CrPC, which vests in “any court” the power, “at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding,” to summon any person or recall and re-examine any person already examined, and imposes a duty on the court to do so where evidence appears essential for a just decision. The expression “at any stage” is significant; while the stage of invocation is a relevant consideration, it cannot alone be an absolute bar.
Justice Jain reinforced the point with the Supreme Court's decision in Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135, which described the administration of justice as a continuous process requiring the court to be an active participant, not a passive recording machine. The court also referred to Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3114, which held that trial courts cannot get swayed by abstract technicalities and must not overlook the object of trial — to get at the truth.
The court then surveyed the settled principles from the Supreme Court's decisions in Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 178; Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271; Raj Deo Sharma (2) v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 604; UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, (2006) 7 SCC 529; and Iddar v. Aabida, (2007) 11 SCC 211, as consolidated in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461. These decisions collectively establish that the power under Section 311 CrPC is wide and discretionary, aimed at ensuring that no material evidence is excluded from consideration where essential for a just decision, and that procedural considerations cannot come in the way of that object.
On the sufficiency of reasons in the CBI's application, the court held that the jurisdiction under Section 311 CrPC is vested in the court itself and is not dependent exclusively on the adequacy of the averments in the party's application. The provision empowers the court to summon or recall a witness even suo motu where the evidence is essential for a just decision. The argument that inadvertence is an insufficient reason therefore missed the point — the court's power is independent of the quality of the party's explanation.
The court also observed that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, while correctly stating settled law, did not advance his case because the applicability of those principles necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the factual matrix here was materially distinct.
The exercise of power by the Special Court was found to be justified. The High Court found no merit in the challenge.
Outcome
Justice Madhu Jain dismissed CRL.M.C. 4892/2026 on 13 August 2026. Pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of. A copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the trial court for necessary information and compliance. The Special Court's direction granting the CBI one opportunity to examine PW-13 D.S. Verma under Section 311 CrPC therefore stands.