Section 311 CrPC: Can Courts Impose Costs for Summoning Witnesses, Bringing Additional Evidence? Supreme Court Clarifies

The Supreme Court has held that courts should not impose costs for allowing an application to summon a witness or bring additional documents on record under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [now Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)], once they find the evidence necessary for a just decision.

A Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya said the power under Section 311 is intended to help courts ascertain the truth and serve the cause of justice, irrespective of whether the prosecution or the defence failed to produce the necessary evidence.

Court made the observation while setting aside the costs imposed on the Income Tax Department for seeking to summon a witness and produce additional documents in three criminal complaint cases against Ritu Verma under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Court was dealing with appeals filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against an order of the Delhi High Court, which had reduced the costs imposed by a magistrate for allowing the department's applications under Section 311 CrPC.

Court set aside both the high court and the magistrate's orders to the extent they imposed costs.

The dispute arose from three complaint cases filed by the Income Tax Department against Ritu Verma under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

During the proceedings, the department moved applications under Section 311 CrPC seeking permission to summon and examine a complainant witness and to place certain additional documents on record.

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Acts), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, allowed the applications by an order dated March 25, 2023, but imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the department in each case.

The department challenged the imposition of costs through revision petitions. However, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petitions as not maintainable, holding that the magistrate's order allowing the Section 311 application was interlocutory in nature.

The department then approached the Delhi High Court under Section 482 CrPC [now Section 528 of the BNSS]. On August 28, 2024, the high court reduced the cost to 50% of the amount imposed by the magistrate.

The department thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

What is the scope of the court's power under Section 311 CrPC?

The Bench noted that Section 311 CrPC operates in two parts. The first part gives the court discretion to summon any person as a witness, examine a person in attendance, or recall and re-examine a person already examined, at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code.

The second part, however, casts a duty on the court to summon and examine, or recall and re-examine, a person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.

Court relied on its judgment in Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh v State of Gujarat (2004), which explained that the object of Section 311 is to enable the court to arrive at the truth even where the prosecution or defence has failed to produce evidence necessary for the proper disposal of the case.

The power, Court noted, is exercised not to assist either the prosecution or the defence, but to "subserve the cause of justice and public interest" and aid the court in reaching a just decision.

In the present case, the Bench said the magistrate had found that the documents sought to be placed on record were necessary for deciding the issues involved in the cases.

"Once the documents are ordered to be taken on record, then it would be a travesty of justice if the same are not allowed to be proved," the Bench said.

It therefore held that, having found substance in the department's Section 311 applications and allowed them, the magistrate could not have imposed costs in the facts of the case.

The Bench accordingly allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Delhi High Court and the magistrate to the extent they imposed costs.

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ritu Verma

Bench: Justices Sandeep Mehta and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya 

Date of Judgment: October 13, 2026