Question

In which of the following cases the Supreme Court of India held that an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could not be rejected on the sole ground that the case had been pending for an inordinate amount of time, in that case, for ten years?

• A. Mina Lalita Baruwa v. State of Orissa, (2013) 16 SCC 173.
• B. Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203.
• C. Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 5 SCC 741
• D. Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461
• A. Mandatory.
• B. Discretionary.
• C. Permissive.
• D. Both (B) and (C).
• A. Yes
• B. No
• C. Depends on the evidence adduced in the case
• D. Depends on the facts of the case.
• A. When allowing the application enablesthe court to determine the truth and to render a just decision
• B. When allowing the application causes serious prejudice to the defence of the accused
• C. When allowing the application gives an unfair advantage to the opposite party
• D. Both (A) and (B).
• A. Determine the truth after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts
• B. Render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts
• C. Discover all relevant facts and obtain proper proof of such facts.
• D. Simultaneously determine the truth and render a just decision.
• A. An opportunity of rebuttal must not be given to the prosecution.
• B. An opportunity of rebuttal must be given to the prosecution.
• C. There is no question of rebuttal as the witness has been summoned by the court.
• D. Whether opportunity of rebuttal is given to the prosecution or not is matter of discretion of the court.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The correct option is (D) : Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461

Answer 2

The question asks which decision specifically held that a Section 311 application cannot be turned down merely because the case has been pending for a long time, here ten years, so each case needs to be checked against what it is actually known for.

1. Mina Lalita Baruwa v. State of Orissa: This case deals with issues arising from a criminal trial involving multiple accused and questions of joint trial and severance, not with the specific ground of delay defeating a Section 311 application.
2. Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan: This decision addresses the recall of a witness in the context of a matrimonial or family related criminal matter, but it is not the authority associated with rejecting the delay argument on facts involving a decade of pendency.
3. Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation: This case is well known for holding that Section 311 cannot be used merely to fill up a lacuna in the prosecution's case, which is a different principle from the one this question is asking about.
4. Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar: This is the decision in which the Supreme Court laid down the twin test for exercising the power under Section 311, holding that an application otherwise essential to a just decision cannot be shut out only because the trial has already run for a long period, including a decade, since delay by itself does not outweigh the need to arrive at the truth.

Only Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar squarely addresses and rejects the ground of prolonged pendency as a standalone reason to refuse a Section 311 application.

Therefore, the correct answer is Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461.

Answer 3

The correct option is (B) : Discretionary.

Answer 4

Section 311 has to be read as a whole to work out how its power is actually characterised, since it uses more than one kind of language within the same provision.

1. Option A: Calling the power purely mandatory ignores that the first part of the provision uses "may", giving the court a choice whether to summon or recall a witness in the ordinary course, so treating it as an unqualified duty in every situation goes too far.
2. Option B: Courts have consistently described this power as one to be exercised at the court's discretion, guided by whether the evidence in question appears essential to a just decision, and exercised with caution rather than as a matter of routine. This is the settled characterisation of the power.
3. Option C: "Permissive" and "discretionary" describe much the same idea, that the court is allowed but not compelled to act, so treating this as a separate, additional characterisation on top of discretionary adds little of substance.
4. Option D: Since permissive substantially overlaps with discretionary rather than standing as a distinct third category, singling out discretionary alone is the more accurate and complete answer.

The power is understood, and consistently described in case law, as a discretionary one that must be exercised judiciously.

Therefore, the correct answer is Discretionary.

Answer 5

The correct option is (A) : Yes

Answer 6

The question asks what happens when a Section 311 application is really being used to patch a gap in a party's own case, rather than to genuinely assist the court in reaching a just decision.

1. Option A, "Yes": Allowing an application whose real purpose is to fill up a lacuna would let a party who failed to lead necessary evidence at the right stage simply reopen the case to cure that failure. Courts have consistently refused to let Section 311 be used this way, so treating such an application as one that should be allowed does not match how the power is actually exercised.
2. Option B, "No": Where the court finds that an application is aimed only at filling a lacuna, whether in the prosecution's case or the defence's, it is not allowed. The power under Section 311 exists to help the court reach the truth on the evidence already properly before it, not to give a party a second opportunity to make good an earlier omission.
3. Option C, "Depends on the evidence adduced": Once the court has already concluded that the application is being used purely to plug a gap, the nature of the evidence already on record does not change that conclusion; the application still falls outside what Section 311 is meant to permit.
4. Option D, "Depends on the facts of the case": Some discretion does operate in identifying whether a lacuna is really being filled, but once that finding is made, as the question frames it, the outcome follows automatically rather than turning on further case specific balancing.

Once an application is found to be aimed only at filling a lacuna, it is refused, since Section 311 is not a mechanism for correcting a party's own omissions.

Therefore, the correct answer is No.

Answer 7

The correct option is (D) : Both (A) and (B).

Answer 8

Courts have laid down a twin test for allowing a Section 311 application, and each option here needs to be measured against that test rather than assumed correct on its own.

1. Option A: An application should be allowed where doing so genuinely helps the court get to the truth and arrive at a just decision on the case. This is exactly the first, affirmative limb of the settled test for exercising the power.
2. Option B: Causing serious prejudice to the defence of the accused is not a reason to allow an application, it is the opposite. The settled position is that the power should not be exercised where doing so would cause serious prejudice to either side; an application that causes such prejudice is refused, not granted, on that ground.
3. Option C: Giving an unfair advantage to the opposite party is likewise a reason courts guard against, not a ground for allowing the application. Fairness to both sides is part of what keeps the power from being misused.
4. Option D: Combining A with B is inconsistent, since B describes an outcome the twin test treats as a reason to refuse the application, not a reason to grant it.

An application is allowed only where it serves the truth-finding, just-decision purpose of the provision, and it is precisely refused where it would cause serious prejudice.

Therefore, the correct answer is When allowing the application enables the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision.

Answer 9

The correct option is (B) : Render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts

Answer 10

Section 311 describes the object of the provision in a single sentence that links fact-finding to an ultimate purpose, so the wording needs to be followed closely to see which duty it actually places on the court.

1. Option A: Determining the truth is part of what the provision is directed towards, but taken alone it describes only an intermediate step in the process, not the duty the provision is ultimately framed around.
2. Option B: The provision is framed around the court discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of them, and then, on that foundation, rendering a just decision of the case. This captures both the necessary groundwork and the duty the section is built to secure.
3. Option C: Discovering facts and obtaining proof is the means by which the duty is carried out, but stopping there leaves out the purpose that the provision is actually working towards, which is arriving at a just decision.
4. Option D: Framing truth-determination and rendering a just decision as two duties happening at the same moment does not track the sequence the provision actually describes, where fact discovery comes first and the just decision follows from it.

The duty imposed is to render a just decision, built on the foundation of discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof.

Therefore, the correct answer is Render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts.

Answer 11

The correct option is (B) : An opportunity of rebuttal must be given to the prosecution.

Answer 12

When a court allows an accused's application to summon or recall a witness under Section 311, the question is what happens to the other side's ability to respond to that fresh evidence.

1. Option A: Denying the prosecution any chance to respond to evidence introduced at the accused's instance would leave the fresh material unchallenged and skew the trial in the accused's favour, which is inconsistent with a fair hearing for both sides.
2. Option B: Basic fairness requires that whichever side did not seek the recall gets a genuine opportunity to test or respond to the evidence that comes in as a result. Since the application here was made by the accused, the prosecution must be given that opportunity of rebuttal.
3. Option C: The fact that the court itself summoned the witness does not remove the need for rebuttal, since the evidence still originates from a request by one side and still needs to be tested by the other for the trial to remain fair.
4. Option D: Leaving this to case by case discretion would allow a prosecution to be shut out of testing fresh evidence in some cases with no clear standard, which does not match the settled expectation that rebuttal be available whenever new evidence is let in this way.

Fair trial principles require that the side that did not seek the recall gets to respond to what comes in as a result of it.

Therefore, the correct answer is An opportunity of rebuttal must be given to the prosecution.