Section 311 CrPC Not for Filling Lacuna, But for Truth: P&H High Court Upholds Power to Recall Witness in NI Act Complaint

Case Name: Vinod Kumar v. M/s Maitri Motors

Date of Judgment: 16 April 2026

Citation: CRM-M-20192-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that Section 311 CrPC (now Section 348 BNSS) empowers the Court to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence is essential for a just decision. Such power can be exercised even at a later stage, and permitting additional evidence to clarify facts does not amount to filling lacuna unless it fundamentally alters the case.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the trial Court’s order allowing an application under Section 311 CrPC filed by the complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant sought to place on record a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and examine the actual proprietor of the firm, contending that the omission was inadvertent.

The petitioner argued that the complaint was originally filed by an authorised signatory claiming to be proprietor, and the subsequent attempt to introduce the real proprietor after cross-examination amounted to filling lacuna and altering the nature of the case. It was further contended that in a proprietorship concern, only the proprietor can be liable, and such a shift in stance was legally impermissible.

The High Court rejected these submissions and clarified the legal distinction between “filling lacuna” and “bringing necessary evidence on record.” It held that a lacuna refers to an inherent defect in the case, whereas an inadvertent omission to produce relevant material can be cured if such evidence is essential for adjudication.

The Court observed that the relationship between the authorised signatory and the actual proprietor was already part of the record, though not properly articulated. The proposed evidence merely clarified the capacity in which the complaint was filed and did not introduce a new case.

It was further held that no prejudice would be caused to the accused, as full opportunity to cross-examine the additional witness would be available. The Court emphasized that procedural powers under Section 311 CrPC must be exercised to advance justice and enable discovery of truth, rather than being restricted by technical objections.

The Court also noted that delay in filing such an application is not fatal if the evidence sought is necessary for a just decision, and issues regarding liability of a proprietorship concern are matters to be adjudicated at trial.

Decision: The High Court upheld the trial Court’s order and dismissed the petition, holding that the discretion under Section 311 CrPC had been exercised judiciously. It ruled that allowing the SPA and examination of the proprietor was necessary for proper adjudication and did not warrant interference.