Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Background
The appellant was an accused in a 1983 CBI corruption case that had been pending trial for over three decades. Although 29 prosecution witnesses had already been examined and the appellant himself had testified as a defence witness in 2014, the trial court repeatedly allowed the prosecution's successive applications to summon one handwriting expert witness, who had failed to appear despite being given chance after chance since 2004. The High Court upheld the trial court's latest order permitting yet another attempt to examine this witness, and the appellant challenged that order before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court explained that Section 311 CrPC gives courts discretion to summon or recall witnesses, but this power must be exercised sparingly, for strong reasons, and not in a way that allows endless, unexplained delay to prejudice the accused. It noted that despite two earlier High Court orders in 2011 and 2014 warning that no further adjournments would be granted to the CBI to produce this witness, the trial court kept allowing fresh applications anyway. Given the case had been pending since 1983 and the prosecution's repeated, unsatisfactory failures to produce the witness, the Court held the High Court ought to have rejected the latest application. It allowed the appeal, quashed the trial court's and High Court's orders, and dismissed the prosecution's application to summon the witness.
Lesson Learnt
Courts can and should refuse to keep reopening a case to accommodate a witness whose non-appearance has already caused years of delay; the right to a fair and speedy trial for the accused outweighs repeated, unexplained requests for further chances by the prosecution.