Section 138 NI Act: Defence Evidence Cannot Be Reopened Merely to Fill Lacunae After Adequate Opportunity; Punjab and Haryana High Court Refuses Recall of Witness and Additional Documents Under Section 348 BNSS, Upholds Closure of Defence Evidence

Case Name: Avtar Singh v. M/s Des Raj & Co.

Date of Judgment: 1 October 2026

Citation: CRM-M-54995-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the power to recall witnesses or reopen evidence under Section 348 BNSS (corresponding to Section 311 Cr.P.C.) is wide but cannot be exercised routinely to enable a party to fill lacunae or improve its defence after sufficient opportunities have been afforded. The determinative consideration is whether the proposed evidence is essential for the just decision of the case, and not merely whether it may assist a party. Where the accused has already extensively cross-examined the complainant and examined witnesses concerning the disputed transactions, a belated request to reopen defence evidence, summon additional documents or examine a handwriting expert cannot be allowed in the absence of cogent justification. Such discretionary orders do not warrant interference under Section 528 BNSS unless they suffer from illegality or perversity.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the closure of his defence evidence and rejection of his application for recalling witnesses and producing additional documents in a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving an alleged liability of ₹10.30 lakh. The petitioner disputed the loan transaction, asserting that the cheque had been issued as security and that the underlying amounts related to agricultural produce sold through firms connected with the complainant.

After extensively cross-examining the complainant and examining a Market Committee official regarding J-Forms and auction records, the petitioner sought reopening of defence evidence under Section 348 BNSS to recall the witness, summon further records and examine a handwriting expert. The trial Court rejected the application as belated.

Referring to Karamjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, 2024 NCPHHC 24178, the High Court reiterated that the power to recall witnesses may be exercised at any stage where the evidence is essential for a just decision, but must be supported by cogent reasons. Since the petitioner was aware of his defence from the outset and had already been afforded sufficient opportunities to establish it, the proposed evidence was not shown to be indispensable. The Court found the application to be an afterthought and declined to interfere.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the orders dated 18.05.2026 and 08.09.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malerkotla, refusing to reopen the defence evidence. The Court held that the petitioner had already been provided sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and lead defence evidence, including examination of a Market Committee official concerning the agricultural transactions relied upon in his defence.