The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the power to recall witnesses or summon additional evidence under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) cannot be used simply to improve or reconstruct a defence after the evidence has already been closed.
Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a petition filed by Avtar Singh challenging orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malerkotla, in a cheque dishonour case. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's refusal to reopen the defence.
Background
M/s Des Raj & Co. had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that Avtar Singh had borrowed ₹10.30 lakh in different instalments. According to the complaint, a cheque for the same amount was issued on August 27, 2021, but was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Singh denied taking the alleged loan. His defence was that the cheque had been given as security and that the amount involved related to payments for crops sold during 2018-19 and 2019-20 through connected firms. He relied upon J-Forms, auction registers and other market records.
The defence had already examined a Market Committee official, who produced relevant records. Another proposed defence witness declined to depose, following which the trial court closed the defence evidence on May 18, 2026 and fixed the matter for arguments.
Singh later sought reopening of his defence, recall of the defence witness, production of additional documents and examination of a handwriting expert. The trial court rejected the application, observing that sufficient opportunity had already been provided.
The High Court agreed. It noted that the defence concerning the crop transactions and J-Forms had already been put to the complainant during cross-examination and that the petitioner had also examined the Market Committee official.
The Court observed:
"The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and plenary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the absence of any cogent justification. The power is required to be exercised where the evidence sought to be brought on record is necessary for a just decision of the case and not merely because a party wishes to improve, supplement or reconstruct its case after the closure of evidence."
The Court further held that merely because a document may have some relevance to the defence, that alone cannot justify reopening the entire defence evidence.
The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the orders dated May 18, 2026 and September 8, 2026 passed by the trial court.
It dismissed the petition and directed that the observations made in the order would not affect the merits of the pending case.
Case Details
Case Title: Avtar Singh v. M/s Des Raj & Co.
Case Number: CRM-M-54995-2026
Judge: Justice Sumeet Goel
Decision Date: October 1, 2026
