1. Quashing of orders refusing reopening of defence evidence in cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138, NI Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 140366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sumeet Goel, J
Avtar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Des Raj & Co. – Respondent
CRM-M-54995-2026
Important Points
The power to recall witnesses under Section 348 BNSS (erstwhile Section 311 CrPC) is discretionary and should be exercised only when evidence is essential for a just decision, not to allow a party to supplement their case after evidence is closed.
Subject
Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 528, 348 and 94; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Power to recall witness and reopen defense evidence - Scope of Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 348 of BNSS) - The power under Section 348 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 311 Cr.P.C.) is wide and plenary but must be exercised judiciously to ensure a just decision of the case and not to allow a party to improve, supplement or reconstruct its case after the closure of evidence. (Paras 9 and 10).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was facing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a cheque of Rs. 10,30,000/-. The petitioner contended that the cheque was for security and related to crop sales. After the Trial Court closed defense evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 348 of the BNSS to recall DW-1, summon further documents, and engage a handwriting expert. The Trial Court dismissed the application, observing it was a belated attempt to fill lacunae, leading to the present petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had already been given a fair opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine the complainant on the facts pertaining to crop transactions. The record showed that DW-1 had already deposed regarding auction registers and J-Forms. The application to reopen evidence at an advanced stage of the trial appeared to be an afterthought and lacked bona fide.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court's order refusing to reopen the defense evidence and recall witnesses suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretionary power to summon or recall witnesses under Section 348 BNSS (erstwhile Section 311 CrPC) should be exercised only when evidence is essential for a just decision and not as a routine measure to supplement a defense after sufficient opportunity has already been granted.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was facing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a cheque of Rs. 10,30,000/-. The petitioner contended that the cheque was for security and related to crop sales. After the Trial Court closed defense evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 348 of the BNSS to recall DW-1, summon further documents, and engage a handwriting expert. The Trial Court dismissed the application, observing it was a belated attempt to fill lacunae, leading to the present petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had already been given a fair opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine the complainant on the facts pertaining to crop transactions. The record showed that DW-1 had already deposed regarding auction registers and J-Forms. The application to reopen evidence at an advanced stage of the trial appeared to be an afterthought and lacked bona fide.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court's order refusing to reopen the defense evidence and recall witnesses suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretionary power to summon or recall witnesses under Section 348 BNSS (erstwhile Section 311 CrPC) should be exercised only when evidence is essential for a just decision and not as a routine measure to supplement a defense after sufficient opportunity has already been granted.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences involving property
- cheque dishonour (Para 1)
-
offences involving property
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.K. Singla
For the Respondents: Jai Bhagwan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.K. Singla
For the Respondents: Jai Bhagwan
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks fair opportunity to establish defence; respondent contends application is belated attempt to fill lacunae and delay trial. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Petitioner already given opportunity to cross-examine complainant and lead defence evidence including examining market committee official. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Power under Section 311 CrPC must be exercised judiciously, not to fill lacunae or allow belated evidence after case substantially progressed. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
5. Petition dismissed; impugned orders upheld; trial court to proceed according to law uninfluenced by observations. (Para 12 )
6. What is the scope of power under Section 311 CrPC for recalling witnesses after closure of defence evidence?
Power is wide but must be exercised judiciously only when evidence is essential for just decision, not to fill lacunae or improve case after substantial progress. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
7. Can a court permit reopening of defence evidence merely because additional material becomes relevant?
No; mere relevance of a document is not a ground for reopening entire defence evidence, especially when ample opportunity was already given and case has progressed. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. Is a belated application for handwriting examination permissible at an advanced stage of trial?
No, such exercise at a belated stage is not necessary for just decision when the trial court found it not warranted and matter had progressed substantially. (Para 6 , 10 )
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the orders dated 18.05.2026 and 08.09.2026 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, in Complaint No. NACT-765-2021, titled M/s Des Raj & Company vs. Avtar Singh, instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated thus:
(i) The respondent-complainant filed the complaint in question under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the petitioner (herein) had borrowed a total amount of Rs.10,30,000/- from the complainant on different occasion(s). As per the complainant, an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was advanced on 13.12.2019; Rs.2,30,000/- on 22.05.2020 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.06.2020. In support of the alleged transactions, the complainant has relied upon its books of account, ledger entries and bank statements. It has been further alleged that, towards discharge of the said liability, the petitioner issued cheque No.000368 dated 27.08.2021 for a sum of Rs.10,30,000/-. However, on presentation, the cheque was dishonoured on account of “insufficiency of funds”. A legal notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner but the said amount was not paid which resulted in the filing of the complaint in question.
(ii) The complainant led its evidence and its representative Sanjeev Kumar was examined at length. During his cross-examination, question(s) were put to him with respect to the transactions in question, relevant J-Forms, connected firms and writings relied upon by the accused. The witness also produced various documents including the books of account, ledger and bank statements. The record further reflects that the witness of the complainant was recalled and extensively cross-examined by the defence.
(iii) In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the alleged loan transaction and took the defence that the cheque in question had been obtained as a security cheque and was not issued against any legally enforceable debt or liability. Furthermore, the defence was that the amount in question was actually payable to him against crops sold by him during the years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and the transaction(s) relating to his crops had allegedly been shown through other connected firms. The petitioner sought to rely upon J-Forms, auction registers and other market records in support of this defence.
(iv) During the defence evidence, the petitioner examined Manpinderjit Singh, a Market Committee official, as DW-1. The said witness brought the record relating to M/s Sushil Kumar Ravinder Kumar and also produced the original auction register. The evidence of DW-1 shows that, according to the Market Committee record, certain crops of the petitioner were shown to have been sold through M/s Sushil Kumar Ravinder Kumar as also certain other entries related to the complainant firm. The witness, however, also stated that he had no personal knowledge of the transactions between the parties. The record further reflects that on 18.05.2026, when the matter was fixed for defence evidence, witness Harish Kumar Ghai appeared but stated that he did not wish to depose in the case. The learned Trial Court considered the request regarding the said witness and thereafter recorded that he was not to be examined. As no other defence witness was present, the learned Trial Court closed the defence evidence and fixed the matter for arguments.
(v) Thereafter, the petitioner (herein) had moved an application under Section 348 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 311 Cr.P.C.) read with Section 94 of the BNSS, seeking reopening of his defence evidence; recall of DW-1 and permission to produce/summon further documents. The petitioner also sought permission to examine a handwriting expert and to summon J-Forms and account books relating to M/s Sushil Kumar Ravinder Kumar. The respondent-compl
