Exercise of Section 311 CrPC power for just decision does not constitute an impermissible review of earlier orders.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging an order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the XVII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.

In the underlying trial (S.T. No. 327/2022), the trial court had previously dismissed an application to call a DNA expert on 05.08.2025.

However, at the stage of final arguments, the court noticed the DNA report and passed a fresh order to summon the DNA expert as a witness.

The petitioner contended that this order violated the bar against a criminal court reviewing its own judgment under Section 403 of the BNSS (formerly Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.).

1. Whether the trial court’s order to summon a DNA expert at the stage of final arguments, after previously dismissing a similar application, constitutes an impermissible review of its own order under Section 403 of the BNSS/Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the summoning of a scientific expert is essential for a "just decision" under the discretionary and mandatory powers of Section 348 of the BNSS/Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

The court applied Section 348 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.), which grants courts the power to summon or recall any witness if their evidence is essential for a just decision.

Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, which established that the determinative factor for summoning a witness is the "essentiality" of the evidence.

Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar was cited to emphasize that this power must be used to achieve justice and not to fill lacunae.

Natasha Singh v. CBI reinforced that the object is to ensure all relevant evidence is before the court for proper adjudication.

The court also distinguished this statutory power from the bar on "review" found in Section 403 of the BNSS/Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.

The High Court reasoned that Section 348 of the BNSS/Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is a "continuing power" available until the conclusion of the trial.

It held that the trial court did not "review" its 2025 order in a judicial sense; rather, it exercised a statutory duty because, upon hearing final arguments, it found the DNA report—a crucial piece of scientific evidence—required expert clarification for a just decision.

The Court noted that since both parties were granted the opportunity to examine the expert, the principles of natural justice were satisfied and no prejudice was caused.

It concluded that the rejection of an earlier application does not strip a court of its jurisdiction to later summon a witness under Section 311 if the evidence becomes necessary as the trial progresses.

The summoning of the DNA expert was deemed necessary for the discovery of truth and a just decision.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed.