Power U/s. 311 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Supplement Or Reconstruct Case After Evidence Is Closed: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the powers conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (now Section 348 of the BNSS) are wide and plenary but must be exercised judiciously rather than in a routine manner without cogent justification.

It was observed that such powers are meant to bring essential evidence on record for a just decision, not to allow a party to improve, supplement, or reconstruct its case at a belated stage.

The Bench of Justice Sumeet held, "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."

Advocate S.K. Singla appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Jai Bhagwan appeared for the Respondent

Brief Facts

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking to quash orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate in a complaint case instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Complainant/Respondent filed a complaint alleging that the Petitioner herein had borrowed a total amount of Rs. 10,30,000/- from the Complainant on different occasions.

During trial, the complainant produced its representative, Sanjeev Kumar, who was cross-examined at length regarding the underlying transactions, J-Forms, connected firms, and account books. The complainant's witness was subsequently recalled and further cross-examined by the defence.

The petitioner moved an application under Section 348 read with Section 94 of the BNSS seeking to reopen defence evidence, recall one witness, examine a handwriting expert, and summon additional account books and J-Forms.

The Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that sufficient opportunity had already been granted, the witnesses had been extensively cross-examined, and permitting additional evidence at such a belated stage would cause grave injustice and delay.

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner contended that the impugned orders have resulted in denial of a fair opportunity to the petitioner to establish his defence Petitioner to establish his defence.

It was further iterated that the defence sought to be produced by the petitioner through the application in question would go to the root of the complaint, as the petitioner has consistently denied having taken any loan from the complainant.

It was also argued that the power under Section 348 of the BNSS was intended to ensure a just decision and a party should not be deprived of the opportunity to produce relevant material evidence merely because its defence evidence was already closed.

Per contra, the Respondent/Complainant submitted that the petition was an attempt to delay the trial, which was already progressed substantially. It was submitted that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to lead his defence and he has already examined DW-1, the concerned Market Committee official.

Furthermore, the petitioner was fully aware of the nature of his defence from the very beginning. It was contended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to repeatedly reopen his defence merely because he has subsequently realised that some additional material may be useful to him.

Observations/Findings of the Court

The main question for the consideration of the Court was whether the impugned order suffered from illegality or perversity.

The Court noted that the evidence showed that the petitioner was not denied an opportunity to establish his defence. On the contrary, the record showed that the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and thereafter to lead his own evidence.

"In the case in hand, the petitioner has already put his defence regarding the J-Forms and transactions related to sale of crops to the complainant. He has also examined the Market Committee official. The record further shows that the witness of the complainant was extensively cross-examined on the same aspects on which the petitioner now seeks to pursue further", the Court observed.

It was noted that the trial Court had duly considered the evidence and recorded a finding that the application in question had been moved at a very belated stage despite sufficient opportunity having already been granted to the petitioner as well as the fact that the matter had progressed substantially.

"This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, is not required to substitute its own view merely because another view may also be possible. No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. In the factual milieu of the case, the application in hand appears to be an afterthought and lacks bona fide", it was held.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned orders and dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Avtar Singh v. M/s Des Raj & Co. [Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:183802]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate S.K. Singla

Respondent: Advocate Jai Bhagwan

Click here to read/download the Judgment