In the case of Stanly Kirthiraj @ Stanley Kirtiraj vs. State of Karnataka (CRL.P No. 6269 of 2024), the petitioner, Mr. Stanly Kirthiraj, was accused in a criminal matter registered under Sections 408 (criminal breach of trust), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, initiated in 2009, involved allegations that Mr. Kirthiraj committed acts of fraud and forgery against a government official, leading to the filing of a charge sheet by the police after a thorough investigation.
The trial has been ongoing for over 15 years, with significant delays attributed to repeated adjournments sought by the defense. Mr. Kirthiraj’s legal counsel, Mr. Elangovan K., filed a petition under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to recall a key witness, PW2, for further cross-examination, claiming that the earlier cross-examination was insufficient. The petition was filed six years after the original examination and cross-examination of the witness.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issue in this case centered around the invocation of Section 311 Cr.P.C., which allows the court to recall a witness at any stage if it is essential for the just decision of the case. The petitioner argued that recalling PW2 was necessary to ensure a fair trial. However, the timing and reasons for the recall request were under scrutiny, as the request came long after the witness had already been examined multiple times.
Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, dismissed the petition on July 22, 2024. The court noted that the defense had repeatedly sought adjournments over the years, delaying the trial unnecessarily. The court criticized this behavior, describing it as a “classic illustration” of how proceedings are dragged in the guise of legal rights, ultimately obstructing the course of justice.
The court emphasized that while Section 311 Cr.P.C. is designed to uphold justice by allowing for the recall of witnesses when necessary, it is not to be misused to delay proceedings. In this case, the court found that the petitioner’s application was intended solely to prolong the trial, given that six years had passed since the witness was initially examined.
Also Read
Important Observations:
Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the repeated requests for adjournments and the delayed application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. were clear indicators of an attempt to manipulate the legal process. The court affirmed the orders of the lower courts, which had also rejected the recall application, and highlighted that justice must not be delayed by such tactics.
