NDPS Accused Had Already Cross-Examined IO; Delhi HC Upholds Refusal To Recall Him At Final Arguments

The petitioner was facing trial under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, arising from the alleged recovery of 136.64 grams of heroin on 25 October 2023.

The Investigating Officer (PW-13), who was not part of the raiding party, was examined and cross-examined on 19 January 2026.

When the case was listed for final arguments more than eight months later, the petitioner sought to recall him for further cross-examination on matters including the raid, public witnesses, sampling and the weight of the exhibits.

The trial court dismissed the application under Section 311 CrPC, finding that the petitioner had had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness and that the application sought to fill gaps in the cross-examination.

The petitioner challenged that order under Section 482 CrPC.

Section 311 CrPC (corresponding to Section 348 BNSS) gives courts broad power to summon, recall or re-examine a witness, but recall is required only where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case; the power must be exercised judicially, with care and caution.

The power should be exercised for strong and valid reasons, and not where an application is an abuse of process, belated without satisfactory explanation, or seeks merely to improve a party’s case.

Recall is not a matter of course: a court must balance the need for a fair trial against prejudice to witnesses and delay, and a bare assertion that recall is needed for fairness is insufficient without tangible reasons.

A request based on counsel’s earlier failure to ask particular questions does not, without more, justify recall; the court must assess the case’s facts and maintain the required balance.

Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS) permits the High Court to intervene in the interests of justice.

The Court held that the proposed questions about the raiding party were not properly directed to PW-13, who joined the investigation only after the recovery.

The matters concerning sampling, sealing, sample weight and forwarding to the FSL had been addressed in his examination-in-chief and were known to the petitioner when cross-examining him; nevertheless, the earlier cross-examination focused on alleged false implication.

The application was made only when the case was listed for final arguments, despite the earlier opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and the Court found no basis to treat further questioning as essential to a just decision rather than an effort to repair the cross-examination.

Any alleged infirmities in the prosecution evidence could be raised in final arguments.

It dismissed the petition and any pending applications, while clarifying that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the trial.