Section 311 CrPC cannot be invoked to recall witnesses and fill lacunae after adequate cross-examination opportunity.

The respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the petitioner had issued Cheque No. 749714 dated 3 October 2022 for ₹5,56,000 towards a legally enforceable liability and that the cheque was dishonoured upon presentation.

After cognizance was taken and summons were issued, the complainant was examined on 3 December 2024. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner applied under Section 348 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 311 of the CrPC, seeking further examination of the complainant on the ground that thirteen questions had not been put to him by the previous counsel.

The Judicial Magistrate rejected the application on 8 October 2025, holding that the accused had been afforded a full opportunity and that the witnesses had already been extensively examined. The Revisional Court dismissed the accused’s challenge on 3 June 2026, leading to the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to recall or further examine the complainant under Section 348 of the BNSS/Section 311 of the CrPC merely because certain questions had not been put to him during the earlier cross-examination.

Whether the orders of the Trial Court and Revisional Court rejecting the application disclosed any material irregularity warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court applied Section 348 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 311 of the CrPC, which empowers a criminal court to summon, examine, recall, or re-examine a witness when such evidence is essential for a just decision of the case; however, the provision cannot be invoked merely to provide a second opportunity, fill lacunae, or rectify omissions attributable to the defence.

The Court also exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and considered the revisional proceedings under Section 440 of the BNSS.

It relied on Madhab Chandra Pradhan v. State of Odisha, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10082 of 2024, and The State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed, 2026 INSC 584, for the principle that Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to fill gaps in the defence case and that repeated examination of witnesses should not be ordered without compelling justification.

The Court found that the petitioner had already been given an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and that the complainant had been examined extensively by defence counsel.

The petitioner’s assertion that thirteen questions had inadvertently remained unasked did not establish that further examination was essential for a just adjudication; rather, it sought to remedy an omission in the defence case.

Applying the principles governing Section 348 of the BNSS/Section 311 CrPC, the Court held that the provision could not be employed to grant a second opportunity or fill a lacuna after the completion of evidence.

Since the Trial Court had exercised its discretion on relevant grounds and the Revisional Court had correctly upheld that decision, no material irregularity or jurisdictional error was shown to justify interference under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

As the trial had remained pending for approximately four years, the Trial Court was directed to endeavour to conclude it expeditiously in accordance with law.