CRM-M-38532-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

225-2

CRM-M- 38532-2025

Vedant . . . Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent

1.Date when the judgment was reserved 27.01.2026

2.Date when the judgment is pronounced 25.02.2026

3.Date when the judgment is uploaded on the website26.02.2026

4.Whether only operative part of the judgment is

pronounced or whether the full judgment is

pronounced

Full

5.The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full

judgment, and reasons thereof.

Not applicable.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

PRESENT:Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate,

Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate and

Mr. Aashutosh Jerath, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jastej Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, has been

filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1),

passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, whereby the application,

dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-14), under Section 348 of BNSS, 2023

(erstwhile Section 311 of Cr.P.C.), filed by the prosecution for recalling

PW-4: SI Naresh Kumar (Investigating Officer), has been allowed.

2. Petitioner – Vedant and one more person, namely, Kamaljeet

CRM-M-38532-2025 2

Kumar @ Kamal, being accused, are facing trial in case FIR No. 242, dated

05.10.2022, under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’, registered at

Police Station STF, Phase-4, Mohali, District SAS Nagar.

Before registration of the FIR, a secret informant informed the

police team headed by SI Naresh Kumar that accused, namely (i) Vedant

(petitioner herein), and (ii) Kamaljeet Kumar @ Kamal, in connivance with

(iii) Honey Kumar Goyal, were engaged in the business of selling narcotic

drugs/pills without license and without bill in the area of Model Town,

Ludhiana. It was further informed that on that day i.e. 05.10.2022, they

would be coming on an Activa scooter, bearing registration No. PB-10-HU-

2566, near Krishna Hospital, Model Town, Ludhiana, to supply intoxicant

tablets to their customers/clients. The information being reliable was

forwarded to the Police Station for registration of the FIR and, thus, the

aforementioned criminal case came to be registered.

3. During investigation, both the accused persons were noticed

coming together on an Activa scooter. The driver disclosed his name as

Vedant (petitioner), and the pillion rider disclosed his name as Kamaljeet

Kumar @ Kamal. From the bag lying on the scooter, a total of 27,000

intoxicant tablets were recovered, i.e., Buprilex-N (3300 tablets) + Addnok-

N (700) + Addnok-N (19000) + Addnok-N (4000) = 27,000 tablets (in total).

After completion of investigation, final report under Section

173(2) of Cr.P.C. [Section 193(3) of BNSS, 2023] was submitted on

09.03.2023, against the petitioner and co-accused Kamaljeet Kumar @

Kamal, whereas name of the third co-accused Honey Kumar Goyal was

CRM-M-38532-2025 3

mentioned in Column No. 2. The role of one more accused, namely, Dr.

Amit Bansal, was also investigated, however, no challan against him was

presented.

Subsequent thereto, supplementary challan, under Section

173(8) of Cr.PC [Section 193(9) of BNSS, 2023] was also filed on

17.04.2023, against third co-accused Honey Kumar Goyal, charge-sheeting

him under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. Dr. Amit Bansal, earlier booked

under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, was discharged, because no cogent

evidence against him was found. Total 10 prosecution witnesses have been

examined as of now, i.e.;

(i)PW1 ASI Makhan Singh;

(ii)PW2 Inspector Balwinder Singh;

(iii)PW3 ASI Mohd. Sadiq;

(iv)PW4 SI Naresh Kumar;

(v)PW5 ASI Rajesh Kumar;

(vi)PW6 C. Gurmukh Singh;

(vii)PW7 Ravinder Singh, Clerk, RTO Office;

(viii)PW8 DSP Ajay Kumar;

(ix)PW9 ASI Sukhdev Singh; and

(x)PW10 Kaushlya Devi

4. On 26.03.2025, an application under Section 348 of BNSS,

2023 (Annexure P-14), was moved by the Additional Public Prosecutor, with

a prayer to recall PW4 – SI Naresh Kumar (Investigating Officer of the case)

for further examination-in-chief. In para No. 2 of the application it has been

stated that though the said witness was examined earlier but inadvertently

certain documents could not be put to him, and it would be necessary to

recall him to question regarding the following aspects, as the same are very

CRM-M-38532-2025 4

important for just adjudication of the case:-

(I)Disclosure statements of accused, dated 07.10.2022,

wherein accused Vedant (Petitioner) has disclosed certain

facts regarding Amit Bansal son of Subhash Bansal,

Vasika No. 5381, dated 30.08.2016;

(II)Lease deed executed between Ranjeet Singh, Manjeet

Singh and Amit Bansal, regarding the proprietorship of

Simran Hospital, situated at 242-L, Model Town,

Ludhiana;

(III)Regarding Activa Scooter, bearing registration No. PB-

10-HU- 2566; and

(IV)Inspection report prepared by the Drug Inspector of Joint

inspection of M/s Simran Hospital.

5. By filing reply/objection to the said application, prayer was

made for seeking dismissal of the application under Section 348 of BNSS,

2023. However, considering the aspects in its entirety, vide impugned order

dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), said application moved by the respondent

– State (Additional Public Prosecutor) was allowed by the learned Trial

Judge, by observing as under:-

“5.xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx

The object of the said provision thus is to elicit the truth from

the witness. Judicial record reflects that accused Vedant had

suffered a disclosure statement in which he had talked about

two more persons namely Amit Bansal and his Manager Honey

Goyal who was running his drug de-addiction centre Simran

Hospital out of whom Honey Goyal was placed by

investigating agency in column no.2 of report under Section

173 Cr.P.C and the other one Amit Bansal was exonerated by

investigating agency observing that no evidence was on record

to connect him with co-accused. It is noteworthy here that a

huge recovery of contraband was effected from the Activa

which was allegedly in possession of the accused which was

owned by Simran Hospital and as per the lease deed dated

05.12.2021 the premises of the said hospital was taken on lease

CRM-M-38532-2025 5

by the said Amit Bansal. When PW4 was examined the

documents relating to the said facts duly mentioned in challan

could not be proved by him on record which are essential to

connect accused with the vehicle from which recovery was

effected which belonged to some one else. On the other hand,

no prejudice will be caused to the accused if PW4 is recalled as

the accused would get enough opportunity to cross-examine the

witness. It was argued by learned counsel for accused Vedant

that disclosure statements were not admissible in evidence qua

the facts other than the ones leading to any discovery/recovery.

The probative value of any evidence/document would be

considered at the appropriate stage of trial and the application

of prosecution cannot be straight away dismissed on this

ground at this stage. Hence the case law relied upon by learned

counsel for accused Vedant as such is not applicable to the facts

of present case and do not lend any support to contentions

raised by him.

6.In view of discussion made above, instant application

stands allowed.”

This is how the instant petition has been filed by accused

Vedant (petitioner herein), primarily on the ground that by recording

examination-in-chief again of the Investigating Officer, i.e., SI Naresh

Kumar, nothing new can be brought on record as all such evidence is already

available on record.

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING

THE PETITIONER:-

6. It is argued that Section 337 being part of CHAPTER XXVI

(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO INQUIRIES AND TRIAL ) gives power

to the Court with regard to the framing of charge, if such an accused is

facing trial before the Court. Allowing of the application under Section 348

of BNSS, 2023, would not give any permission to frame any new charge or

creation of an evidence against the petitioner – Vedant or the accused

already facing trial. While submitting so, learned Senior counsel refers the

CRM-M-38532-2025 6

contents of the application, wherein, nothing has been pleaded by the Public

Prosecutor. Rather, the application has been moved to prove the same facts,

which allegedly were disclosed by petitioner – Vedant in his disclosure

statement in regard to one person Dr. Amit Bansal, who is not even an

accused before the Trial Court, having been not charge-sheeted. Therefore,

inherent purpose of Chapter XXVI, containing the protection of Section 348

of BNSS, 2023, has to be understood and then applied for an accused, who

is already before the Court. Whereas, accused – Dr. Amit Bansal, has

already been discharged by the police, after conducting investigation. Thus,

application, dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-14), is in contravention of the

provisions of Chapter XXVI of BNSS, 2023. Therefore, nothing new can be

proved on record by producing PW4 – SI Naresh Kumar, viz-a-viz the

accused qua whom the trial is going on.

7. Further argued that the application has been moved at such a

belated stage, when prosecution had already closed its evidence and the

proceeding was fixed for recording of the statement of accused under

Section 351 of BNSS, 2023. By moving such application at such a belated

stage or allowing the same by the learned Trial Court, prosecution cannot be

permitted to enlarge the scope of the trial because, basically, power is vested

with the Court only for the purpose of obtaining the best and legally

admissible evidence in the perspective of the ongoing trial, on the basis of

the charges framed against the accused before it. Application, denotes that

prosecution wants to bring the facts on record, which will enable it to

summon Dr. Amit Bansal as an additional accused, as the main accused.

8. Further argued that while allowing the application, learned Trial

CRM-M-38532-2025 7

Court has referred to the discovery of contraband from a two wheeler

(Activa scooter), owned by Simran Hospital and further highlighted the

disclosure of facts by the accused already facing trial, implicating Dr. Amit

Bansal and Manager – Honey Kumar Goyal in his statement.

Since, Dr. Amit Bansal is not a charge-sheeted accused, before

allowing of application under Section 348 of BNSS, 2023, to bring on record

the facts qua Dr. Amit Bansal, is against the basic spirit of Chapter XXVI.

9. Learned Senior counsel further argued that there was no such

necessity for the Court to allow the application under Section 348 of BNSS,

2023, as in no way any charge can be framed against the accused facing trial

including the accused – Kamaljeet Kumar @ Kamal, whose disclosure

statement dated 27.10.2022, already stands proved by PW9 – ASI Sukhdev

Singh as Ex.PW3/13.

Even lease-deed with respect to the property in favour of

Simran Hospital already stands proved by PW10 – Kaushlya Devi, owner of

the premises in question. Said rent-deed is already on record as Ex.PW10/2.

Similarly, PW7 – Ravinder Singh, Clerk RTO office, already

proved the ownership of Activa scooter in the name of Simran Hospital, by

producing document Ex. PW7/A.

Thus, broadly, it was being argued that application moved under

Section 348 of BNSS, 2023, is completely misconceived, because the

evidence to the effect has already been led on all the aspects on the case

record, before trial Court.

10. Further argued that it is beyond controversy that the prosecution

has itself planned to utilize the evidence, sought to be brought on record for

CRM-M-38532-2025 8

an entirely different purpose, namely, to make out a case against Dr. Amit

Bansal and then to get him summoned, who already stood discharged. Thus,

allowing of application is nothing but enlarging the scope of Chapter XXVI

and the very purpose of the provision under Section 348 of BNSS, 2023.

Therefore, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner prayed for

setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), same

being wholly unwarranted in the perspective of the present trial.

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED STATE COUNSEL :

11. On the other hand, learned State counsel while arguing

regarding sustainability of the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure

P-1), passed by the learned Trial Court, and opposing the arguments

advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the

provision of Section 348 of BNSS, 2023 gives ample power to the Court that

can be exercised at any stage during inquiry/trial by recalling or re-

examination of any person already examined, even by summoning any other

person as a witness, in case is found that such evidence would be essential

for the just decision of the case.

12. Learned State counsel further argued that may be, the evidence

which is being sought to be put to PW4 – SI Naresh Kumar (Investigating

Officer of the case) by recalling him for examination-in-chief, is already

there on record, still it is imperative for the prosecution that the same is also

proved in the words of the investigating officer of the case, who collected

such material facts during investigation. Unless, it is being deposed by the

said witness, it may be taken as missing of link evidence in the case.

13. Lastly, learned State counsel submitted that, in fact, accused –

CRM-M-38532-2025 9

Vedant (petitioner herein), has got instituted that instant petition as a proxy

petitioner, with the sole purpose of safeguarding the interests of someone

else, who may not be an accused before the Court as on date. One fails to

understand as to why and for what purpose the petitioner is trying hard to

deprive the Court from bringing the factual position on record, which was

created during the course of investigation by a particular Investigating

Officer, viz-a-viz, some other accused/person also. Prosecution is duty

bound to bring on record all such facts, even if some one has been left out

inadvertently, or left it to the wisdom of the Court to exercise it’s power

vested under Chapter XXVI to allow or not, looking at the interest of justice

or essential to the just decision of the case.

Learned State counsel, thus, prayed for dismissal of the instant

petition.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:-

14. I have considered the record and the appended documents with

the petition, apart hearing learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as

well as learned State counsel representing the respondent – State.

15. In the application dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-14), under

Section 348 of BNSS, 2023, a precise contention is that PW4 – SI Naresh

Kumar, Investigating Officer, during his examination inadvertently could not

mention about the documents, as same were not put to him. The disclosure

statement, dated 17.10.2022, wherein, accused – Vedant (petitioner herein)

disclosed certain facts regarding Dr. Amit Bansal; Vasika No. 5381, dated

30.08.2016; lease deed executed between Ranjeet Singh, Manjeet Singh and

Amit Bansal regarding the proprietorship of Simran Hospital, situated at

CRM-M-38532-2025 10

242-L, Model Town, Ludhiana; regarding Active Scooter, bearing

registration No. PB-10-HU- 2566; and inspection report prepared by the

Drug Inspector of Joint inspection of M/s Simran Hospital

16. First of all, this Court would like to look at the disclosure

statements, dated 05.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, of petitioner – Vedant,

recorded by none else, but PW4 – SI Naresh Kumar, which reads as under:-

“DISCLOSURE STATEMENT U/S 27 OF EVIDENCE ACT

In the presence of following witness, during enquiries,

accused Vedant son of Ajay Kumar made disclosure statement

before me that, “Some days ago, my Senior manager Hunny

Goel son of Bhola Ram, resident of Barnala had got procured a

parcel of intoxicating tablets and he had told me and Kamaljit

Kumar alias Kamal, who works with me as Lab Attendant in

Simran Drug De-addiction Centre, 242-L, Model Town,

Ludhiana, to keep this parcel with you at your rented Kothi at

New Kartar Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana by hiding it at some

confidential place. We three will equally divide the profit after

selling these intoxicating tablets. Then on the saying of Senior

Manager Hunny Goel, under the lure of money, I and Kamaljit

Kumar alias Kamal brought the parcel on the activa of the

company to our rented Kothi No.182/32-A, Street No.6, New

Kartar Nagar, Ludhiana provided by the company and had hid

the same in the clothes lying in the double-bed of our room,

which fact is known to me and Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamal

only. I can got recovered that parcel of intoxicating tablets upon

my identification by visiting the place with you." On this, the

disclosure statement of accused Vedant above under Section 27

of the Evidence Act has been typewritten, which was read over

to accused Vedant, who the statement, after hearing and reading

admitted it to be correct. After getting the print out of his

disclosure statement with the assistance of printer, the

signatures of the accused and testimony of the witnesses are

being appended on the same.

Accused Vedant above

Sd/-

Witness:1.ASI Mohammed Sadiq No. 614/Ldh.

Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range

Sd/-

2.ASI Paramjit Singh No. 462/Ldh.

Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range

CRM-M-38532-2025 11

Sd/-

Sd/- Naresh Kumar, SI

Special Task Force,

Ludhaiana Range

Dated: 05.10.2022

Attested by

Sd/- Ajay Kumar

Deputy Supdt. Of Police,

Special Task Force,

Ludhiana Range

Dated: 05.10.2022”

On 07.10.2022, another disclosure statement was recorded by

SI Naresh Kumar, which reads as under:-

“DISCLOSURE STATEMENT U/S 27 OF EVIDENCE ACT

In the presence of following witness, the intense

enquiries made during police remand, accused Vedant son of

Ajay Kumar made disclosure statement before me that, "Amit

Bansal son of Subhash Bansal, resident of Sector 28-A,

Chandigarh, Owner of Simran Drug De-Addiction Centre,

Model Town, Ludhiana, had provided an Activa Scooter

bearing No.PB-10HU-2566 white coloured to me and Kamaljit

Kumar alias Kamal, for doing the works of Drug De-addiction

Centre,Model Town and for commuting from Kothi, New

Kartar Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana and upon receiving the of

calls from different mobile numbers and whatsapp calls by his

customers regarding purchase tablets, Hunny Goel son of Bhola

Ram, resident of Barnala, District Barnala used to send me and

Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamal to deliver tablets of BUPRILEX-

N and Addnok-N, as per the demands of the customers, at the

place told by the customers, on the above numbered active

scooter of the hospital and I and Kamaljit alias Kamal used to

deliver the tablets to his customers after reaching at the place

told by him, as per the identification narrated by him. After

receiving payment from the customers for the tablets, we used

to handover the same to Hunny Goel. He used to pay us our due

commission. Apart from this, Hunny Goel used to get placed

the tablets of BUPRILEX-N and Addnok-N procured without

bill, at the kothi taken on lease at Mohalla New Kartar Dhuri

Line, Nagar, I and Ludhiana through us. Kamaljit alias Kamal

were also residing in that kothi. Hunny Goel had promised to

both of us for paying heavy commission apart from salary to

under the lure of supplying maximum tablets of us BUPRILEX-

N and Addnok-N to the customers outside the hospital. Hunny

Goel used to send the tablets of BUPRILEX-N and Addnok-N

with bill and without bill, through different transporters, to the

Drug De- Addiction Centre, Model Town, Ludhiana. They used

CRM-M-38532-2025 12

to keep tablets with bills at Drug De-addiction Centre and

tablets without bill at above rented house. Hunny Goel used to

say to us that he has talked with owner Amit Bansal, you do not

worry, I will take care of everything and will also get your

salary increased from the owner, on which, the disclosure

statement of accused Vedant above under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act has been typewritten, which was read over to

accused Vedant, who after hearing and reading the statement,

admitted it to be correct. After getting the print out of his memo

disclosure statement with the assistance of printer, the

signatures of the accused and testimony of the witnesses are

being appended on the same.

Accused Vedant above

Sd/-

Witness: 1.ASI Sukhdev Singh No. 2402/Ldh.

Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range

Sd/-

2.Senior Constable Kuldeep Singh No. 487/Ldh.

Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range

Sd/-

Sd/- Naresh Kumar, SI

Special Task Force,

Ludhaiana Range

Dated: 07.10.2022”

17. Similarly, other co-accused Kamaljeet Kumar @ Kamal also got

recorded his disclosure statements on 05.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, which

were also recorded by PW4 – SI Naresh Kumar, being Investigating Officer

of the case.

For reference, disclosure statements dated 05.10.2022 and

07.10.2022, made by co-accused Kamaljeet Kumar @ Kamal, are also

reproduced here-under:-

(i)Disclosure statement dated 05.10.2022

“DISCLOSURE STATEMENT U/S 27 OF EVIDENCE ACT

In the presence of below mentioned witnesses, during enquiry,

accused Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamal son of Tarlok Chand has

CRM-M-38532-2025 13

made disclosure statement before me that, "Some days ago, my

Senior manager Hunny Goel son of Bhola Ram, resident of

Barnala had got procured a parcel of intoxicating tablets and he

had told me and Vedant, who works with me as Assistant

Manager in Simran Drug De-addiction Centre, 242-L, Model

Town, Ludhiana, to keep this parcel with you at your rented

Kothi at New Kartar Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana by hiding it

at some confidential place. We three will equally divide the

profit after selling these intoxicating tablets. Then on the

saying of Senior Manager Hunny Goel, under the lure of

money, I and Vedant brought the parcel on the active of the

company to our rented Kothi No.182/32-A, Street No.6, New

Kartar Nagar, Ludhiana provided by the company and had hid

the same in the clothes lying in the double-bed of our room,

which fact is known to me and Vedant only. We can got

recovered that parcel of intoxicating tablets upon our

identification by visiting the place with you." On this, the above

disclosure statement of accused Vedant under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act has been typewritten, which was read over to

accused Kamaljit Singh alias Kamal, who after hearing and

reading the statement, admitted it to be correct. After getting the

print out of his disclosure statement with the assistance of

printer, the signatures of the accused and testimony of the

witnesses are being appended on the same.

Accused Kamaljeet Singh

alias Kamal above

Sd/-

Witness:1.ASI Mohammed Sadiq No. 614/Ldh.

Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range

Sd/-

2.ASI Paramjit Singh No. 462/Ldh.

Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range

Sd/-

Sd/- Naresh Kumar, SI

Special Task Force,

Ludhaiana Range

Dated: 05.10.2022

Attested by

Sd/- Ajay Kumar

Deputy Supdt. Of Police,

Special Task Force,

Ludhiana Range

Dated: 05.10.2022”

(ii)Disclosure statement dated 07.10.2022

“DISCLOSURE STATEMENT U/S 27 OF EVIDENCE ACT

CRM-M-38532-2025 14

In the presence of following witness, on the intense enquiries

made during police remand, accused Kamaljit Kumar alias

Kamal son of Tarlok Chand made disclosure statement before

me that, "Amit Bansal son of Subhash Bansal, resident of

Sector 28-A, Chandigarh, Owner of Simran Drug De-Addiction

Centre, Model Town, Ludhiana, had provided an Activa Scooter

bearing No.PB-10HU-2566 white coloured to me and Vedant,

for doing the works of Drug De-addiction Centre, Model Town

and for commuting from Kothi, New Kartar Nagar, Model

Town, Ludhiana and upon receiving the calls from different

mobile numbers and whatsapp calls by his customers regarding

purchase of tablets, Hunny Goel son of Bhola Ram, resident of

Barnala, District Barnala used to send me and Vedant to deliver

tablets of BUPRILEX-N and Addnok-N, as per the demands of

the customers, at the place told by the customers, on the above

numbered active scooter of the hospital. I and Vedant used to

deliver the tablets to his customers after reaching at the place

told by him, as per the identification narrated by him. After

receiving payment from the customers for the tablets, we used

to handover the same to Hunny Goel. He used to pay us our due

commission. Apart from this, Hunny Goel used to get placed

the tablets of BUPRILEX-N and Addnok-N procured without

bill, at the kothi taken on lease at Mohalla New Kartar Nagar,

Dhuri Line, Ludhiana through us. I and Vedant were also

residing in that kothi. Hunny Goel had promised to both of us

for paying heavy commission apart from salary to us under the

lure of supplying maximum tablets of BUPRILEX-N and

Addnok-N to the customers outside the hospital. Hunny Goel

used to send the tablets of BUPRILEX-N and Addnok-N with

bill and without bill, through different transporters, to the Drug

De-Addiction Centre, Model Town, Ludhiana. They used to

keep tablets with bills at Drug De-addiction Centre and tablets

without bill at above rented house. Hunny Goel used to say to

us that he has talked with owner Amit Bansal, you do not

worry, I will take care of everything and will also get your

salary increased from the owner, on which, the disclosure

statement of accused Vedant above under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act has been typewritten, which was read over to

accused Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamal, who after hearing and

reading the statement, admitted it to be correct. After getting the

print out of his memo of disclosure statement with the

assistance of printer, the signatures of the accused and

testimony of the witnesses are being appended on the same.

Accused Kamaljit Kumar

alias Kamal above

Sd/-

Witness:1.ASI Sukhdev Singh No. 2402/Ldh.

Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range

CRM-M-38532-2025 15

Sd/-

2.Senior Constable Kuldeep Singh No. 487/Ldh.

Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range

Sd/-

Sd/- Naresh Kumar, SI

Special Task Force,

Ludhaiana Range

Dated: 07.10.2022”

18. Though the aforementioned disclosure statements have been

proved by PW3 – Mohd. Sadiq in his statement and also by PW9 – ASI

Sukhdev Singh, when they appeared in the witness-box as witnesses thereof,

however, it is an admitted position that all the facts mentioned in those

disclosure statements were recorded by none else but PW4 – SI Naresh

Kumar. However, while appearing in the witness-box, he failed to discharge

his duty by not mentioning much about the facts disclosed in the said

disclosure statements by the aforesaid accused.

19. It is also apposite to mention here that name of the third accused

in the case, i.e. Honey Kumar Goyal, was initially mentioned in Column

No.2. Thereafter, supplementary challan, dated 17.04.2023, against him was

filed and he was charge sheeted under Section 27 of the NDPS Act.

However, after confession of guilt, the said third accused was sentenced to

undergo 15 days’ rigorous imprisonment, i.e., the period already undergone

by him, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to

further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week, vide order

dated 28.07.2023. After the fine amount was paid, he was ordered to be

released by the Court.

It would not be out of place to notice here that PW4 - SI Naresh

CRM-M-38532-2025 16

Kumar, who was the Investigating Officer of the case qua accused Honey

Kumar Goyal, submitted the supplementary challan, but gave a clean chit to

Dr. Amit Bansal merely by observing that no evidence was available against

him.

Activa Scooter, bearing No. PB-10-HU-2566, was found to be

registered in the name of Simran Hospital, which is being run by none else

than Dr. Amit Bansal. It was also found that the owner of Simran Drug De-

addiction Centre, Model Town, Ludhiana, is Dr. Amit Bansal. The rent deeds

with regard to the said hospital are also on record, which facts are now

sought to be brought out through the testimony of SI Naresh Kumar,

Investigating Officer.

Though this is not the stage to examine whether Dr. Amit

Bansal was given a clean chit rightly or wrongly, yet the fact remains that all

these aspects were disclosed by the accused in their disclosure statements,

which were penned down by none else but SI Naresh Kumar. Therefore, the

facts stated therein, recorded in the form of disclosure statements before the

Investigating Officer, were required to be stated in evidence, which he failed

to mention while appearing in examination-in-chief.

In the impugned order also, learned Trial Court has taken note

of the fact that in the disclosure statement of accused Vedant, he referred two

more persons, namely, Amit Bansal and Manager Honey Goyal, who were

running the Drug De-addiction Centre, i.e., Simran Hospital. A huge

recovery of 27,000 tablets was effected from the Activa Scooter, which was

in possession of the accused and was owned by Simran Hospital, run by Dr.

Amit Bansal.

CRM-M-38532-2025 17

20. From the impugned order, it also becomes clear that documents

relating to these facts could not be proved by PW4 on record, which, in fact,

are essential to connect the accused with the vehicle from where recovery of

contraband was effected, i.e., Activa scooter, bearing No. PB-10-HU-2566,

which belongs to someone else.

The concept of Section 348 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 311

Cr.P.C.), i.e. calling a witness again to depose certain facts which, though

already on record, were omitted to be stated in his own testimony, cannot be

termed as “recalling of a witness to fill up lacuna in the case of the

prosecution”. Even this is not the argument of the petitioner herein that a

lacuna is being filled up. Rather, the stand of the petitioner is that the facts

which the prosecution now proposes to bring on record through SI Naresh

Kumar have already been proved by other witnesses.

This Court fails to understand that being so, why the impugned

order has been assailed by the petitioner, and, therefore, it appears to be a

proxy litigation filed by the petitioner – Vedant by speculating the future

course of action, which may or may not be initiated by the Court qua any

other person, including Dr. Amit Bansal.

21. This Court also feels that by calling the witness, the learned

Trial Court appears to have realized that on the aspect sought to be proved,

examination of SI Naresh Kumar is essential, and accordingly ordered his

recall. Even by allowing the application, there would be no change in the

nature of the case against any party, as the documents are already on record.

The primary object is that ‘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

CRM-M-38532-2025 18

Court’.

While exercising such power, the Court is empowered to

examine the situation holistically and assess the implications of allowing

such a prayer, which may affect the final adjudication of the case. Under

Section 348 of BNSS, 2023, the expression “essential to the just decision of

the case” implies not only the rights of the accused before the Court but also

encompasses a broader perspective, including the possibility that any other

person, if found involved or wrongly exonerated, he could also be called to

join the proceedings in the case, so that the just decision of the case be done

by such Court.

Thus, it can be concluded safely that the provision of Section

348 of BNSS, 2023 can be exercised at any stage during inquiry/trial by

recalling or ex-examination of any person already examined, even by

summoning any other person as a witness, if such evidence appears to be

essential to the just decision of the case. Therefore, arguments viz-a-viz

interest of the party facing trial accused before the Court, is rather

misconceived concept because the power is exercisable for the just decision

of the case as a whole and not qua the accused only, who is/are before it.

22. In the present proceedings, this Court would refrain from going

into the aspect that SI Naresh Kumar, being the Investigating Officer, did not

file challan against one of the accused, namely, Dr. Amit Bansal, and merely

observed in the final report that no connecting evidence was available

against him. Further, while appearing in the witness-box, he did not state

anything regarding the facts mentioned in the disclosure statements and

other aspects, which are now sought to be proved by recalling him. Any such

CRM-M-38532-2025 19

observation at this stage may prejudice the rights of either party.

23. The views expressed by this Court are fortified from the

judgment of this Court in the case of Gurdit Singh and others v. State of

Punjab (CRM-M-69179-2025, decided on 09.12.2025). The relevant

paragraph No.11 of Gurdit Singh’s case (supra) is reproduced here-under:-

“11.Similarly, this Court in Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh

Chauhan v. Gurmeet Singh and another (supra), while referring

to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajaram Prasad

Yadav v. State of Bihar and another, 2013(3) RCR (Crl.) 726,

and Manan SK v. State of West Bengal, (2014) 13 SCC 59, has

observed as under:–

“12.A three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme

Court also examined the aforesaid issue in 2013 (3)

RCR (Criminal) 726 Rajaram Prasad Yadav v.

State of Bihar and another. In the said case, the

trial Court disallowed the application filed by State

under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr.P.C.), to re-examine PW-9, the

informant. The High Court reversed the order and

allowed the said application. While discussing a

plethora of judgements, the broad principles with

regard to invoking section 311 Cr.PC were culled

out as under:

"23.From a conspectus consideration of

the above decisions, while dealing with an

application under Section 311 Criminal

Procedure Code read along with Section 138

of the Evidence Act, we feel the following

principles will have to be borne in mind by

the Courts:

a)Whether the Court is right in thinking

that the new evidence is needed by it?

Whether the evidence sought to be led in

under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a

just decision of a case?

b)The exercise of the widest

discretionary power under Section 311

Criminal Procedure Code should ensure that

the judgment should not be rendered on

inchoate, inconclusive speculative

CRM-M-38532-2025 20

presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of

justice would be defeated.

c)If evidence of any witness appears to

the Court to be essential to the just decision

of the case, it is the power of the Court to

summon and examine or recall and re-

examine any such person.

d)The exercise of power under Section

311 Criminal Procedure Code should be

resorted to only with the object of finding

out the truth or obtaining proper proof for

such facts, which will lead to a just and

correct decision of the case.

e)The exercise of the said power cannot

be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a

prosecution case, unless the facts and

circumstances of the case make it apparent

that the exercise of power by the Court

would result in causing serious prejudice to

the accused, resulting in miscarriage of

justice.

f)The wide discretionary power should

be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.

g)The Court must satisfy itself that it

was in every respect essential to examine

such a witness or to recall him for further

examination in order to arrive at a just

decision of the case.

h)The object of Section 311 Criminal

Procedure Code simultaneously imposes a

duty on the Court to determine the truth and

to render a just decision.

i)The Court arrives at the conclusion

that additional evidence is necessary, not

because it would be impossible to pronounce

the judgment without it, but because there

would be a failure of justice without such

evidence being considered.

j)Exigency of the situation, fair play

and good sense should be the safe guard,

while exercising the discretion. The Court

CRM-M-38532-2025 21

should bear in mind that no party in a trial

can be foreclosed from correcting errors and

that if proper evidence was not adduced or a

relevant material was not brought on record

due to any inadvertence, the Court should be

magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to

be rectified.

k)The Court should be conscious of the

position that after all the trial is basically for

the prisoners and the Court should afford an

opportunity to them in the fairest manner

possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would

be safe to err in favour of the accused getting

an opportunity rather than protecting the

prosecution against possible prejudice at the

cost of the accused. The Court should bear in

mind that improper or capricious exercise of

such a discretionary power, may lead to

undesirable results.

l)The additional evidence must not be

received as a disguise or to change the

nature of the case against any of the party.

m)The power must be exercised keeping

in mind that the evidence that is likely to be

tendered, would be germane to the issue

involved and also ensure that an opportunity

of rebuttal is given to the other party.

n)The power under Section 311

Criminal Procedure Code must therefore, be

invoked by the Court only in order to meet

the ends of justice for strong and valid

reasons and the same must be exercised with

care, caution and circumspection. The Court

should bear in mind that fair trial entails the

interest of the accused, the victim and the

society and, therefore, the grant of fair and

proper opportunities to the persons

concerned, must be ensured being a

constitutional goal, as well as a human

right."

xxxxxxxxxx

16.The judgment pressed into service by

learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Mannan Sk.

CRM-M-38532-2025 22

And others v. State of West Bengal and another

2014(13) SCC, 59 was a case where the trial Court

had dismissed the application moved by

prosecution under section 311 Cr.P.C. but the order

was reversed by the High Court. The matter

pertained to offence under Section 302 IPC

wherein the Investigating Officer during his cross-

examination has stated that he has recorded the

statement of the deceased before his death, but no

such statement had in fact been brought on record.

The prosecution had moved an application under

Section 311 Cr.P.C. at the stage when the matter

was fixed for arguments. The purpose of recalling

the witness of the prosecution was to place on

record a statement which was virtually in the

nature of dying declaration. The importance of a

dying declaration in a case where there is no direct

evidence can hardly be undermined. Further, in the

said case accused were found to be aware of the

said statement and had duly cross-examined the

Investigating Officer in this regard and it was

under these circumstances Hon'ble the Supreme

Court while affirming order of High Court

observed that it was a case of oversight that the

document could not be placed on record earlier and

not a case of filling up lacuna.

17.However, even in Mannan's case, the broad

view taken by Apex Court is in tune with the ratio

of Rajaram's case (Supra). The Supreme Court of

India in Mannan's case (Supra) held as under:

"10. The aim of every court is to discover

truth. Section 311 of the Code is one of

many such provisions of the Code which

strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to

ferret out the truth by procedure sanctioned

by law. It is couched in very wide terms. It

empowers the court at any stage of any

inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the

Code to summon any person as a witness or

examine any person in attendance, though

not summoned as witness or recall and re-

examine already examined witness. The

second part of the Section uses the word

'shall'. It says that the court shall summon

and examine or recall or re-examine any

such person if his evidence appears to it to

be essential to the just decision of the case.

CRM-M-38532-2025 23

The words 'essential to the just decision of

the case' are the key words. The court must

form an opinion that for the just decision of

the case recall or reexamination of the

witness is necessary. Since the power is wide

it's exercise has to be done with

circumspection. It is trite that wider the

power greater is the responsibility on the

courts which exercise it. The exercise of this

power cannot be untrammelled and arbitrary

but must be only guided by the object of

arriving at a just decision of the case. It

should not cause prejudice to the accused. It

should not permit the prosecution to fill-up

the lacuna. Whether recall of a witness is for

filling-up of a lacuna or it is for just decision

of a case depends on facts and circumstances

of each case. In all cases it is likely to be

argued that the prosecution is trying to fill-

up a lacuna because the line of demarcation

is thin. It is for the court to consider all the

circumstances and decide whether the prayer

for recall is genuine."

xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

24.As already noticed above, while the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has consistently held that Court has

vast powers to summon or recall any witness with

the aid of Section 311 Cr.P.C. at any stage but such

application can only be allowed if the Court comes

to a conclusion that it is absolutely necessary to do

so for just decision in the matter. Such application

is neither to be allowed to fill up lacuna nor can be

allowed to be made as a tool to delay trial. While

this Court cannot dispute that the right to fair trial

is a crucial and precious right of the accused, but

so is the complainant's right to a fair trial which

requires that they should not unnecessarily be

harassed. Ensuring a fair trial can not be

interpreted to mean that the accused has to be

afforded opportunities of recalling witnesses for

further cross-examination at the mere asking. The

case of an accused has to be meritorious where

such prayer is made. The Hon'ble Apex Court in

case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav

(2016) 2 SCC 402 had emphasized that fairness of

a trial has to be seen, not only from the perspective

CRM-M-38532-2025 24

of accused, but also of the victim and society.

Thus, this Court also has a duty to ensure an

expeditious and fair trial, preventing misuse of

such applications for delaying the proceedings

before the learned Trial Court.”.”

24. As a sequel to above discussion, I do not find any illegality,

infirmity or any defect in the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure

P-1), passed by the learned Trial Court, warranting any interference by this

Court.

Accordingly, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(SANJAY VASHISTH)

JUDGE

February 25, 2026

J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No