Back
Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules Recall of Witness Can't Improve Defence After Closure
In a significant ruling on the limits of the power to recall witnesses, the has held that – the successor to – cannot be invoked merely to help an accused after the evidence has already been closed.
Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a petition filed by Avtar Singh, the accused in a cheque dishonour case, who sought to reopen his defence, recall a defence witness, summon additional documents, and examine a handwriting expert. The Court found that the trial court had rightly refused the request, as the petitioner had already been given sufficient opportunity to present his case.
A ? The Background
The case arose from a complaint under . alleged that Avtar Singh had borrowed a total of ₹10.30 lakh in three instalments between December 2019 and June 2020, and issued a cheque for that amount on . The cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds.
In his defence, Singh denied taking any loan. He claimed the cheque was given as security, and that the amount actually represented payments due to him for crops sold during 2018-19 and 2019-20, which had been routed through other firms connected with the complainant. He relied on J-Forms, auction registers, and other market records to support this claim.
What Happened at Trial
During the trial, the complainant's representative was extensively cross-examined on these transactions, including after being recalled. The petitioner then examined a official, Manpinderjit Singh, as his sole defence witness (DW-1). Another proposed defence witness, Harish Kumar Ghai, appeared on but stated he did not wish to depose. The trial court treated this as the last opportunity, closed the defence evidence, and fixed the matter for arguments.
Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 348 BNSS seeking to reopen his defence, recall DW-1, summon J-Forms and account books of , and examine a handwriting expert to compare certain writings. The , dismissed the application on , holding that it was belated and would cause delay.
The Core Principle: Witness Recall Not a Tool for Improvement
The High Court framed the question as whether the impugned orders suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference. Relying on its earlier decision in , which laid down the principles governing Section 311 , the Court noted that the power to recall or summon a witness is wide, but must be exercised judiciously and with .
Justice Goel 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 . The power is required to be exercised where the evidence sought to be brought on record is necessary for a and not merely because a party wishes to after the closure of evidence."
The Court found that the petitioner's defence – concerning the crop transactions, J-Forms, and connected firms – had already been put to the complainant's witness during cross-examination, and the
official had been examined as a defence witness.
"It cannot be said that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to establish his defence,"
the Court held.
No New Plea, Only a
Crucially, the Court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the order closing his defence evidence at the relevant time. Instead, he waited until after the matter was fixed for arguments to move the reopening application. The plea about crop sales and connected firms was not a new one that emerged only after closure of evidence; it was part of the defence from the beginning.
"The mere fact that a document may have some relevance to the defence cannot, by itself, be a ground for reopening the entire defence evidence."
The Court also declined to interfere with the trial court's finding that the proposed handwriting comparison was not necessary for a just decision at that stage. It observed that the application
"appears to be an
and lacks
."
Decision and Implications
Dismissing the petition, the High Court upheld both the and orders of the trial court. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the pending case, which must be decided on its own evidence.
The ruling reinforces the principle that the under Section 348 BNSS is a discretionary one, to be exercised sparingly and only when the evidence sought is genuinely essential for a just decision. It cannot be used as a backdoor to allow a party to plug gaps in its case after the evidence has been closed.
