Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Filling Lacunae in Defense, Not Essential for Just Decision: High Court Rejects Plea for Recall and Examination of Defense Witnesses in NI Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking the recall and examination of defense witnesses in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code was an attempt to fill gaps in the petitioner's case and not essential for a just decision.

The crux of the judgment was the interpretation and application of Section 311 Cr.P.C., which deals with the power of a court to summon, recall, or re-examine any person as a witness if it considers their testimony essential for a just decision of the case.

The petitioner, facing charges under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonour of a cheque, had moved an application for recalling DW1 Mukesh and summoning Mr. K.L. Sharma, Advocate, as defense witnesses. The lower courts dismissed this application, leading to the present petition.

Court Assessment: Recall and Examination of Witnesses: The High Court found that the petitioner did not establish the essentiality of these witnesses' testimonies for a just decision. The court also noted that conversations between an advocate and a client are privileged, thus deeming it inappropriate to summon the advocate for testimony to the disadvantage of the complainant.

Scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C.: The court meticulously examined the scope of Section 311, emphasizing judicious and essential use of this power. Citing various Supreme Court precedents, the court highlighted that this power should not be exercised to fill lacunae in the defense's case or delay trial proceedings.

Decision to Dismiss Application: Concluding that the conditions for invoking Section 311 were not met, the High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, reinforcing the need for cautious and judicious use of judicial discretion in recalling and examining witnesses.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions and underscoring the importance of prudence in judicial discretion, especially concerning the recall and examination of witnesses in the interest of a just adjudication.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2024

Ram Narayan v. State of Haryana and another

Latest Legal News