Delhi High Court Refuses to Recall Prosecution Witnesses in CBI Corruption Trial Merely Due to Change of Defence Counsel, Holds Fair Trial Not Compromised
Facts
The Delhi High Court was dealing with a petition filed by Sunil, who was facing trial for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The criminal trial was at the stage of defence evidence. The petitioner had moved an application under Section 311 CrPC, corresponding to Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking recall of four prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-15.
The petitioner’s ground was that several important questions had not been put to the witnesses by his previous defence counsel. The Trial Court partly allowed the application by permitting recall of PW-1, but rejected the request to recall the remaining witnesses. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS.
Issues
- Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to recall PW-11, PW-12 and PW-15 under Section 311 CrPC.
- Whether alleged failure of the previous defence counsel to ask certain questions was sufficient ground to recall prosecution witnesses.
- Whether the alleged existence of CCTV at the spot and non-production of CCTV footage justified recalling PW-12 and PW-15.
- Whether the impugned order suffered from illegality, perversity or abuse of process warranting interference under supervisory jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that relevant and important questions were not put to the prosecution witnesses by the previous defence counsel, and therefore recall of PW-11, PW-12 and PW-15 was necessary for a fair trial.
During arguments, the petitioner particularly relied on the alleged presence of CCTV at the spot. He submitted that an RTI reply dated 04.06.2026 showed that one CCTV camera was installed at the relevant spot and was in working condition at the relevant time. According to him, the prosecution had failed to disclose or preserve the CCTV footage, and this aspect was important for the Trial Court to reach a just and fair conclusion.
Respondent’s Arguments
The CBI appeared through its Special Public Prosecutor on advance notice. The judgment does not record detailed independent submissions on behalf of the CBI, but the Court considered the prosecution record and the reasoning given by the Trial Court while examining whether recall of the witnesses was necessary.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted that Section 311 CrPC gives discretionary power to recall witnesses where such recall is necessary for a just decision of the case. However, this power cannot be exercised mechanically or merely because an accused changes counsel or feels that some further questions could have been asked.
The Court emphasized that permitting recall merely on the ground of change of counsel would make the process of examination and cross-examination endless and would delay trial proceedings.
Precedent Analysis
No specific precedent was discussed in the judgment. However, the Court applied the settled principle underlying Section 311 CrPC that recall of witnesses must be allowed only where it is necessary for reaching a just decision, and not as a routine measure or to fill gaps arising from a change in defence strategy.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the Trial Court’s order was elaborate, comprehensive and had dealt with all relevant aspects. On the CCTV issue, the Court noted that the RTI reply itself indicated that the footage was not available in the concerned office, and it may have been overwritten with passage of time.
The Court held that since the CCTV footage was not presently available, it was too late to recall witnesses on that basis. However, the Court clarified that the accused would get an opportunity to lead defence evidence and could, if advised, rely upon the RTI reply at that stage.
The Court further observed that the cross-examination of the remaining three witnesses appeared omnibus and comprehensive. It found that the petitioner’s right to fair trial was not compromised, even remotely.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition in limine and refused to interfere with the Trial Court’s order rejecting recall of PW-11, PW-12 and PW-15. The Court held that change of counsel does not automatically justify recall of witnesses, and no illegality, perversity, abuse of process or compelling reason was shown for interference.
Case Details
Case: Sunil v. C.B.I.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 4519/2026, CRL.M.A. 18705/2026 and CRL.M.A. 18706/2026
Judge: Justice Manoj Jain
Date: 03 July 2026
Result: Petition dismissed in limine; Trial Court’s refusal to recall PW-11, PW-12 and PW-15 upheld.
