IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

328 CRM-M-69179-2025 Decided on : 09.12.2025 Gurdit Singh and others . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tejinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab assisted by ASI Ravinder Singh.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)

1. Petitioners herein, namely, (1) Gurdit Singh, (2) Bhola Singh, (3) Manjinder Singh @ Manna, (4) Kuldeep Singh @ Givi, and (5) Dharaminder Singh, have filed present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for quashing of the order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-16), passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Gurdaspur, in case bearing No. NDPS-325- 2022, titled as “State v. Gurdit Singh @ Gitta and others”, arising out of FIR No. 115, dated 30.06.2022, under Section 21(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur, whereby, application filed by the prosecution, under Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.), has been allowed.

2. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide impugned order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-16), on application filed by the State/Public Prosecutor under Section 348 BNSS has been allowed, whereby it was prayed that witness ASI Jagdish Singh, who had already appeared as PW-1, be recalled and re-examined, as while appearing on 19.04.2024 and 25.02.2025 he deposed only regarding the disclosure statement of accused Manjinder Singh, but inadvertently, the remaining portion of his statement could not be recorded, though he was a member of the police party according to the prosecution case. Further submits that unless remaining testimony of PW-1 is recorded as per his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-6), the evidence would remain incomplete, which may affect the final adjudication of the case.

Trial Court allowed the said application vide impugned order by observing that perusal of the record reveals that ASI Jagdish Singh was shown as a member of the police party and had deposed only with respect to the disclosure statement of accused Manjinder Singh. It was further observed that any material witness can be recalled for his re-examination if his evidence appears essential for just decision of the case.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argues that no specific or cogent reason has been assigned by the prosecution, as to how recalling the PW-1 would serve the ends of justice. It is submitted that permitting such re-examination, at this belated stage, would allow the prosecution to fill up the lacunae, after realizing the weaknesses disclosed during cross-examination conducted by the accused.

In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon the judgments Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Chauhan v. Gurmeet Singh and another, Law Finder Doc Id # 2549293 : 2024 NCPHHC 9934, and Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025(2) RCR (Criminal) 98 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2695295, to argue that allowing such a request at this stage would amount to give prosecution an opportunity to fill up lacunae after noticing the weaknesses exposed in cross-examination, which is impermissible in law.

Hence, prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-16).

4. On 08.12.2025, when the matter was taken up, notice was issued to the learned State Counsel in Court and served upon him, and the proceedings were deferred to 09.12.2025 (i.e. for today) so that the limited issue raised by the petitioners may be decided expeditiously without further delay in trial proceedings.

5. Learned State Counsel submits that the re-examination of PW-1 is essential since he was present as a member of the police party from the inception of the case, which is evident from the FIR itself. His omission during examination-in-chief occurred inadvertently. Therefore,