Can a court charge a party for letting it call a witness the court itself finds necessary? Not under Section 311 CrPC, the Supreme Court has held, undoing costs of Rs 1 lakh per case imposed on the Income Tax Department.
New Delhi: Costs levied on the Income Tax Department for allowing its applications under Section 311 CrPC to summon a complainant witness and place more documents on record cannot stand, the Supreme Court has ruled, setting aside the relevant part of orders passed by a Delhi magistrate and the Delhi High Court [Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ritu Verma].
The judgment of October 13, 2026 was delivered by a Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, which allowed the appeals.
No costs where the evidence is found necessary
Section 311, the Bench explained, has two limbs. One is a discretionary power to summon or recall a witness at any stage. The other is a mandatory duty to do so when the evidence looks essential to a just decision. Citing Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004), it repeated that the provision is there to help the court reach the truth, not to help either side, and that the power has to serve the cause of justice and the public interest.
The magistrate had himself found the witness and the documents necessary. In that situation, the Court held, costs could not be imposed for granting the applications, and it said it would be a travesty of justice if documents ordered on record were then not allowed to be proved. The costs orders of the magistrate and the High Court were set aside. Section 311 CrPC corresponds to Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
From Tis Hazari to the Supreme Court
The department had filed three criminal complaints against Ritu Verma under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the provision on wilful attempt to evade tax. Midway through the trial it moved applications under Section 311 CrPC, seeking to summon a complainant witness and to bring additional documents on record.
On March 25, 2023, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Acts) at Tis Hazari Courts allowed the applications but imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh in each case. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the department’s revisions as not maintainable, treating the order as interlocutory. The Delhi High Court, using its powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), halved the costs on August 28, 2024. The department then came to the Supreme Court.
The three complaints under Section 276C(1) are still pending before the trial court. Their allegations are untested, the Supreme Court’s ruling deals only with costs, and it expresses no view on the merits of the prosecution. The presumption of innocence applies to the accused.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ritu Verma
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2026