Court reiterates that power to recall witnesses under BNSS Section 348 is wide but must be exercised judiciously, and refusal to reopen defence evidence after closure is not interference if no illegality is found.
In a significant ruling delivered on October 1, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash the orders of the Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, which had refused to reopen defence evidence and recall a defence witness in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case, M/s Des Raj & Co. vs. Avtar Singh, involved allegations of cheque dishonour amounting to Rs. 10,30,000/-, which the complainant claimed was a loan disbursed on multiple occasions.
The petitioner, Avtar Singh, contended that the cheque was issued as a security cheque and denied any legally enforceable debt. He asserted that the amount was related to crop sale transactions conducted through connected firms and sought to rely on Market Committee records, auction registers, and J-Forms to establish his defence. During the trial, the petitioner had already cross-examined the complainant's witness extensively and examined a Market Committee official as defence witness (DW-1), who produced some relevant documents.
Subsequently, after closure of defence evidence, the petitioner moved an application under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - the equivalent of Section 311 Cr.P.C. - requesting reopening of defence evidence, recall of DW-1, production of additional documents, and examination of a handwriting expert to verify the writings on the J-Forms and related documents.
The trial court rejected this application, holding that the petitioner had been granted sufficient opportunity to present his defence and that the belated application appeared to be an afterthought aimed at supplementing or reconstructing the defence. It was noted that reopening defence evidence at such an advanced stage would cause undue delay and prejudice to the complainant. The court emphasized that the power under Section 348 BNSS, although wide, must be exercised judiciously and not routinely.
On appeal, the High Court concurred with the trial court's reasoning. Justice Sumeet Goel referred to the precedent set in Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (2024), reiterating that the prime consideration for recalling a witness or reopening evidence under Section 348 BNSS is whether the evidence appears essential for a just decision of the case. Mere relevance or potential usefulness is insufficient to warrant reopening, especially when the party had adequate opportunity earlier.
The Court observed that the petitioner had already put forth the defence related to crop transactions and had cross-examined the complainant on the same issues. The additional documents and handwriting expert examination sought at a late stage did not justify disturbing the earlier closure of defence evidence. The Court also highlighted that no new plea was being raised; rather, the petitioner sought to improve or supplement the case, which is not a valid ground.
Rejecting the petitioner's contention of denial of fair opportunity, the Court held that the trial court's orders dated May 18, 2026, and September 8, 2026, were neither illegal nor perverse and deserved no interference under Section 528 BNSS (inherent jurisdiction). The Court directed the trial court to proceed further in accordance with law, unaffected by the observations made in the quashing petition.
This judgment underscores the principle that while criminal courts have broad powers to summon or recall witnesses and reopen evidence, such powers must be exercised with circumspection to prevent abuse of process and undue delay. It also reinforces that parties should avail of their opportunities during trial without attempting to re-open or supplement their case after closure without compelling justification.
Bottom Line:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaint under Section 138 - Reopening of defence evidence and recall of defence witness after closure of evidence - Power under Section 348 BNSS/Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide but must be exercised judiciously only when evidence is essential for just decision of case - Accused having already cross-examined complainant on relevant defence and examined Market Committee official cannot be permitted, at belated stage, to recall witness, summon further documents and seek handwriting expert merely to improve or supplement defence - No interference under Section 528 BNSS.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 348, 528, 94 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS); erstwhile Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Avtar Singh v. M/s Des Raj & Co., (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992032
