Case at a Glance
In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint over a dishonoured cheque of Rs 10.3 lakh before a Malerkotla magistrate, the defence evidence was closed in May 2026 after a defence witness declined to depose, and the case was fixed for arguments. The accused then sought to reopen his defence, recall a witness, summon J-Forms and account books and get a handwriting comparison, to prove that the money related to crop sales. The trial court refused, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld that refusal, holding that the power to summon or recall witnesses must be used judiciously and not routinely, and that a plea known from the outset cannot justify reopening evidence at a late stage.
The complainant firm alleged that the petitioner borrowed Rs 10,30,000 in three instalments — Rs 7 lakh on 13 December 2019, Rs 2.3 lakh on 22 May 2020 and Rs 1 lakh on 10 June 2020 — and in discharge issued a cheque dated 27 August 2021 for Rs 10,30,000, which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. After a legal notice went unanswered, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malerkotla. The complainant’s witness was cross-examined extensively, recalled, and cross-examined again.
In his statement under Section 313 CrPC the petitioner denied any loan, claimed the cheque was only a security cheque, and said the money related to crops sold in 2018–19 and 2019–20 through connected firms, relying on J-Forms, auction registers and market records. He examined a Market Committee official as DW-1. On 18 May 2026, another witness appeared but declined to depose; the trial court closed the defence evidence and fixed the case for arguments. The petitioner’s later application under Section 348 BNSS (read with Section 94 BNSS) to reopen the defence, recall DW-1, produce further documents and seek a handwriting comparison was dismissed on 8 September 2026. He challenged both orders under Section 528 BNSS.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the trial court right to refuse to reopen the defence evidence and recall witnesses at the stage of final arguments in a cheque-bounce case?
Wide Power, Used Judiciously — Not to Rebuild a Known Defence
Justice Sumeet Goel relied on the High Court’s earlier decision in Karamjit Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2024 NCPHHC 24178, which holds that the prime test for summoning or recalling a witness is whether the evidence ’appears to be essential to the just decision of the case’, that successive applications are not barred but call for ’a higher degree of circumspection’, and that the power must be exercised with cogent reasons. The Court noted that the power under Section 311 CrPC (now Section 348 BNSS) is wide but must be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of routine.
Applying this, the Court found that the petitioner had not been denied an opportunity: he had cross-examined the complainant’s witness on the J-Forms and crop-sale transactions and had examined DW-1. The order of 18 May 2026 closing his evidence was not challenged at the time. The crop-sale and connected-firm plea was not new — it had been known from the outset — so it could not justify reopening the defence, and the request for handwriting comparison did not persuade the Court. The application appeared to be an afterthought lacking bona fides. Since the trial court had reasonably exercised its discretion, the High Court would not substitute its own view under Section 528 BNSS merely because another view was possible.
What the Court Actually Held
- The power to summon or recall witnesses is wide but must be used judiciously, only where the evidence is essential to a just decision.
- A defence plea known from the outset cannot justify reopening defence evidence at the stage of final arguments.
- The accused had full opportunity to prove his crop-sale defence; the late application was an afterthought lacking bona fides.
- The petition against the orders of 18 May 2026 and 8 September 2026 was dismissed, with a clarification that the observations will not affect the merits and the trial court is to proceed in accordance with law.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Cheque-bounce trials are meant to be summary and quick; the ruling discourages late applications that stall them.
- It shows how courts balance the accused’s right to a fair defence against attempts to fill gaps after evidence is closed.
- It applies the Karamjit Singh principles to the BNSS-era recall power.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused in Cheque Cases
- Lead all defence evidence, including documents like J-Forms and account books, at the right stage — it may not be possible to add them later.
- If the court closes your evidence, challenge that order promptly rather than waiting.
For Counsel
- A recall application must show why the evidence is essential and why it could not be produced earlier; cite Karamjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 NCPHHC 24178.
- Complainants can oppose late applications by showing that the plea was pleaded or put in cross-examination from the start.
Key Takeaways
- Recall and summoning powers are not a tool to rebuild a defence.
- A defence known from the outset cannot be a ground to reopen evidence late.
- Unchallenged orders closing evidence weaken later applications.
- The High Court will not interfere with a reasonable exercise of trial-court discretion under Section 528 BNSS.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an accused recall a witness after defence evidence is closed?
The court has power to do so under Section 348 BNSS (formerly Section 311 CrPC) if the evidence is essential to a just decision. In this case the High Court held that the request was an afterthought because the defence had been known from the beginning.
Does this mean the accused lost the cheque-bounce case?
No. The High Court only upheld the refusal to reopen evidence. It clarified that its observations will not affect the merits, and the trial court will decide the case.
What is a security cheque defence?
The accused claims the cheque was given only as security and not for a legally enforceable debt. Here that plea, along with the crop-sale explanation, will be considered on the evidence already on record.
Conclusion
With the trial at the stage of final arguments, the High Court declined to let it slip back into evidence on a defence the accused had carried from the start. The ruling is a reminder that the recall power is meant to serve justice, not to give a second innings.
Practical takeaway: Put your whole defence on record during your evidence — courts will be slow to reopen it once the case is fixed for arguments.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com