IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.133 CRM-M-9129-2026 Decided on : 17.02.2026 Amant Industries and another ...... Petitioners Versus M/s Nalas Steel Re-rolling Mills ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Priyanshu Kamra, Advocate for the petitioners.

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. By way of filing the instant petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.02.2026, passed by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh (Annexure P-4) vide which the application of the petitioner under Section 348 of BNSS (earlier Section 311 Cr.P.C.), for recalling CW1 Darshan Singh, for further cross-examination has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the earlier counsel could not properly cross-examine CW1 and for this reason, the petitioner had to change the counsel, as such he had filed an application under Section 348 of BNSS for re-calling CW1 for further cross- examination which has wrongly been dismissed by the trial Court. He further submits that in case complainant Darshan Singh, CW1 is recalled for his further cross-examination, no prejudice will be caused to him. Learned counsel submits that the further cross-examination of CW1 is very much essential for the just and proper decision of the case. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 and allowing the application of the petitioner for further cross-examination of CW1 Darshan Singh.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. It is apparent from the record that the complainant has been examined and cross-examined at length. Now the case is at the stage of defence evidence and arguments. The emphasis of the petitioner for recalling CW1 for further cross-examination is that there is a change of counsel and some vital facts came to the knowledge of the new counsel which were not put by previous counsel and these are very much necessary to be answered by the said witness for the just and proper decision of the present case. However, there is no gain saying that the complainant has been examined and enough opportunities have been given to the accused- petitioner for cross-examining the complainant. It is settled proposition of law that statutory provisions of Section 348 of B.N.S.S., 2023 are liberal in nature, however, neither the discretion under Section 348 of B.N.S.S., 2023 can be exercised to delay the trial nor to fill up the lacunas in the case. Reliance is placed on V.N.Patil vs K.Niranjan Kumar and others, passed in SLP(Crl.)No.8965 of 2018 on 04.03.2021 and the relevant para of which reads thus:

“15. The object underlying Section 311 Cr.P.C. is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code”. It is, however, to be borne in mind that the discretionary power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said “wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion.”

5. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AG v. Shiv Kumar Yadav and another, 2015(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 312 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing various judgments has held that mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall the witness. In the said judgment it was held as under: -

“10. It can hardly be gainsaid that fair trial is a part of guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Its content has primarily to be determined from the statutory provisions for conduct of trial, though in some