Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Trial Court Order Allowing Production of Electronic Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC; Holds Power Is Wide and Aimed at Truth Discovery
Case Name: Harwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 15 January 2026
Citation: CRR-2230-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers wide discretionary powers upon the Court to permit summoning, recalling, or re-examination of witnesses, and that production of relevant electronic evidence incidental to such examination is permissible where it is essential for a just decision of the case. The Court held that allowing the complainant to tender a pen drive along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act does not amount to filling lacunae and causes no prejudice to the accused when full opportunity of cross-examination is preserved.
Summary: The criminal revision petition was filed challenging an order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, whereby an application under Section 311 CrPC moved by the complainant was allowed. By the said application, the complainant sought permission to tender a pen drive containing a recorded conversation along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act during his examination-in-chief, on the ground that the CD earlier produced had become unreadable.
The prosecution case arose out of FIR No. 17 dated 16.02.2020 registered under Sections 420, 406, 294 and 506 IPC at Police Station City Raikot. The trial court allowed the application, observing that no prejudice would be caused to the accused as objections regarding admissibility and authenticity could be raised during trial and tested through cross-examination.
The petitioner contended that Section 311 CrPC could not be invoked for production of documents or electronic records and that the complainant was attempting to fill lacunae in the prosecution case. It was further argued that the authenticity of the pen drive was doubtful and that the impugned order suffered from illegality and perversity.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that Section 311 CrPC is couched in the widest possible terms and casts a duty upon the Court to arrive at the truth and render a just decision. The Court observed that the provision is not intended to benefit either party but to enable discovery of truth. It was further held that the mere fact that evidence may strengthen the prosecution case or was not produced earlier is not a valid ground to reject an application under Section 311 CrPC.
The Court noted that the trial court had adequately safeguarded the rights of the accused by leaving the issues of admissibility, authenticity and evidentiary value of the pen drive open for determination at the stage of appreciation of evidence. The High Court found no material irregularity, jurisdictional error, or perversity in the exercise of discretion by the trial court.
Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed. The impugned order dated 19.07.2025 allowing the complainant’s application under Section 311 CrPC was upheld.