Section 348 BNSS Is To Discover Truth, Not To Protect Technical Omissions: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Investigating Officer

"‘Essential to the Just Decision of the Case’ Is the Key – Fair Trial Means Justice to Accused, Victim and Society", In a powerful reaffirmation of the Court’s duty to discover truth, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the power under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not confined to protecting procedural technicalities but is meant to secure a “just decision of the case as a whole.”

Justice Sanjay Vashisth dismissed a petition under Section 528 BNSS challenging the Trial Court’s order allowing recall of the Investigating Officer in an NDPS case involving recovery of 27,000 intoxicant tablets. The High Court upheld the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Special Court, Ludhiana, permitting recall of PW-4 under Section 348 BNSS, corresponding to Section 311 Cr.P.C.

The Court made it clear that the expression “essential to the just decision of the case” cannot be read narrowly and that the criminal justice system must not allow material evidence to remain unproved merely because of inadvertent omissions.

Disclosure Statements, Hospital Link and 27,000 Tablets

The petitioner Vedant, along with a co-accused, was facing trial under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act in FIR No. 242 dated 05.10.2022 registered at STF, Mohali. Acting on secret information, police intercepted the accused riding an Activa scooter near Krishna Hospital, Ludhiana. From a bag placed on the scooter, 27,000 intoxicant tablets were recovered.

During investigation, disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were recorded by SI Naresh Kumar, the Investigating Officer. The statements referred to the involvement of Honey Kumar Goyal and Dr. Amit Bansal, allegedly linked to Simran Drug De-addiction Centre. The scooter used for transportation of contraband was registered in the name of the hospital.

Although supplementary challan was filed against Honey Goyal, Dr. Amit Bansal was not charge-sheeted. During trial, ten prosecution witnesses were examined. However, while deposing, the Investigating Officer failed to refer to certain material aspects of the disclosure statements and related documents.

Consequently, the prosecution moved an application under Section 348 BNSS seeking recall of the Investigating Officer to prove disclosure statements, lease deed of the hospital, ownership documents of the scooter and inspection report of the hospital.

The Trial Court allowed the application, holding that the documents were essential to connect the accused with the vehicle from which recovery was effected.

“The Aim of Every Court Is to Discover Truth”

Challenging the recall, the petitioner argued that all documents were already on record and recall would amount to filling lacuna in the prosecution case. It was also contended that the application was a backdoor attempt to implicate a discharged person.

Rejecting these arguments, Justice Vashisth undertook a detailed analysis of Section 348 BNSS and Supreme Court precedents including Rajaram Prasad Yadav, Mannan Sk. and Shiv Kumar Yadav.

The Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s observation:

“The aim of every court is to discover truth… The words ‘essential to the just decision of the case’ are the key words.”

The High Court emphasized that Section 348 BNSS is couched in wide terms and empowers the Court at any stage of inquiry or trial to summon, recall or re-examine a witness if such evidence appears essential.

“Power Is for the Just Decision of the Case as a Whole”

In a significant observation, the Court clarified that the provision is not confined to the rights of the accused presently before the Court.

“The power is to be exercised for the just decision of the case as a whole and not merely qua the accused presently before the Court.”

The Court explained that fair trial does not mean shielding technical lapses. Fairness extends to the accused, the victim and society. The criminal court must ensure that evidence necessary for proper adjudication is not shut out on hyper-technical grounds.

Recall Not Equivalent to Filling Lacuna

Addressing the allegation of filling lacuna, the Court held that recalling a witness to prove documents already on record or to clarify inadvertent omissions does not automatically amount to filling gaps in the prosecution case.

The Court noted that the disclosure statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer himself. His failure to depose about relevant facts during examination-in-chief created a missing link in the chain of evidence. Allowing recall merely enabled the prosecution to place complete link evidence on record.

The Court further observed that apprehensions regarding possible future summoning of another person were speculative and could not be a ground to prevent the Court from exercising its statutory power.

Section 348 BNSS – Wide But Not Arbitrary

The judgment reiterates that although the power under Section 348 BNSS is wide, it must be exercised judiciously and with circumspection. It cannot be used arbitrarily or as a tool for delay. However, when the Court forms an opinion that recall is essential for a just decision, it is duty-bound to permit such examination.

The High Court concluded that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion properly and that no illegality or infirmity was found in the order permitting recall of PW-4.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that criminal trials are not contests of procedural maneuvering but processes directed toward discovery of truth. Section 348 BNSS is a powerful tool to ensure that justice is not compromised by inadvertent omissions.

By upholding recall of the Investigating Officer, the Court has sent a clear message that “essential evidence cannot be sacrificed at the altar of technical objections” and that the ultimate aim of the criminal justice system remains a fair and complete adjudication.

Date of Decision: 25 February 2026