inkinccorporation@gmail.com Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Suri vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
112
CRR-274-2026
Date of decision: 13.02.2026
DEEPAK SURI ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .......Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Ms. Khushbir Kaur Bhullar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated
02.01.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala, whereby his
application under Section 348 of BNSS (Section 311 of Cr.P.C) in case FIR
No. 128 dated 06.11.2012 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 has been dismissed.
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR along
with Ashok Suri C/o Ashok Rice Mills and Harpal Singh Prop Shri
Hargobind Rice Mills. The procurement agencies of the Government of
Punjab, i.e. PUNGRAIN, PUNSUP, etc., had purchased paddy of the PAU-
201 variety without bothering about the specification of the said paddy. The
1 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:48 :::
CRR-274-2026 -2-
procured paddy was eventually supplied to the rice millers for milling of
rice, and no samples were taken even at that stage. The complainant-
department thus followed an unscientific methodology not only for the
procurement of paddy but also for the allotment and allocation of the same.
Eventually, the FIR was got registered on allegation of the shortage of rice
and embezzlement thereof.
3. The prosecution led its evidence, and on conclusion thereof, the
incriminating material was put to the petitioner herein while recording
statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C.
4. The petitioner has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in
the aforesaid case and that he was not guilty of having committed the
offence. He sought time to lead the defence evidence. No defence evidence
was led by the petitioner herein, whereupon the defence evidence was closed
vide order dated 27.10.2025. It was thereafter that the application under
Section 348 BNSS was moved by the petitioner for the summoning of
witnesses detailed out as under:-
“3. That to prove the case of accused/applicant, the
accused/applicant wants to summon the following record
through the process of this Hon’ble Court : –
a. The Concerned Clerk from the office of Food
Corporation of India, number 39 to 42 Dakshin Marg, Sector
31-A, Chandigarh – 160030 alongwith the following record.
i. Letter dated 08.08.2011 received from Sh. B.S.
Joshi, Deputy Commissioner, (S & R) Government of
India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public
Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi addressed to The
Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department,
Government of Punjab regarding uniform specifications2 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -3-of Paddy, Rice and Coarse Grains for Kharif Marketing
Season 2011-12.
ii. DO No. 43-4/2009-QCC/108 dated 20.08.2009
issued by Dr. Joy I. Cheenath the then Joint Secretary
Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food
and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, for
insuring Kharif Marketing Season 2009-10
arrangements.
iii. DO No. 40-18/2011-QCC/1968 dated
30.08.2011 issued by Dr. D Bhalla, the then Joint
Secretary Government of India, Ministry of Consumer
Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi, for insuring Kharif Marketing Season 2011-
12 arrangements.
iv. No. E.3(1) Kharif/2009-10-899 dated
19.10.2009 issued by Sh. I.K. Negi, Deputy General
Manager (QC) Food Corporation of India.
v. No. 192(20)/2011-FC.K/C dated 04.11.2012
Government of India regarding provisional rates of
custom milled rice procured under (FAQ) specifications
delivered to the central pool during the Kharif Marketing
Season 2011-12 in respect of Government of Punjab and
its Agencies.
vi. Letter No. 5(10/2009-PY1 dated 22.09.2009
and letter No. 5(10/2009-PY1 dated 23.09.2010 and DO
No. RP-2-2010/2832 issued by Sh. Adaish Partap Singh
Kairon the then Minister of Food Civil Supplies,
Consumer Affairs and Information Technology Minister,
Punjab, Chandigarh issued to Union Minister for
Agriculture Consumer Affairs, Food and Public
Distribution, New Delhi.
3 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -4-
vii. Letter DO No. R.P.1A(2085)-09/6502 dated
21.12.2009 Government of Punjab, Department of Food
and Civil Supplies, Chandigarh send by SP Singh IAS
Secretary to Secretary of Government of India, Ministry
of Consumer Affairs, Department of Food and Public
Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
viii. Memo No. RP-2(285)-2010 dated 15.06.2015
issued by Director to Government of Punjab, Food and
Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs, Punjab issued to
Secretary of Government of India, Department of Food
and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
b. Concerned Clerk from the Office of PUNSUP
Patiala alongwith Complete Original record of the committee
constituted for lifting of Rice after giving letter number
A.Paddy/14/1313439 dated 14.03.2014, Letter number 13163
dated 18.03.2014, Letter number 13314 dated 20.03.2014
alongwith Milling bill of KMS 2011-12 regarding Suri Gram
Udyog.
c. Concerned Clerk from the Office of Anaaj Bhawan
Sector 39-C Chandigarh-160036 alongwith record of Memo
No. 1/376/2008-ਅੱਖ-1-1219 dated 18.10.2008 issued by
Additional Director, Food and Civil Supplies to Deputy
Director Field and all the district controllers Food and Civil
Supplies and consumer affairs, Punjab.
d. Concerned Clerk from the Office of Chief Secretary to
Government of Punjab, Chandigarh alongwith Complete
Original record of DO No. RPII(2085)-2010/267 dated
03.09.2010 issued by Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab
issued to Cabinet Secretary Government of India.
e. Concerned Constable from Police Station Sadar Patiala
alongwith certified copy of FIR NO. 187/2012 and 188/2012.
4 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -5-
f. Concerned clerk from the office of Principal Secretary to
Chief Minister, Punjab alongwith complete original record of
DO No. RP-1(2094)-2010 sent by Chief Minister, Punjab to
Union Minister for Agriculture, Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution.
g. Concerned clerk from the office of Ministry of Consumer
Affairs- Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and
Public Distribution, Government of India, Number 1-5/2009-
PY.I i.e. Meeting held on 08.09.2010 regarding milling/disposal
of PAU-201 variety of Paddy.
5. The respondent(s) filed their reply, specifically taking numerous
objections in the application, which reads thus:-
“1. That the present application has been filed just to
delay the proceedings in this case. The case was
registered on 06.12.2012 against the accused and he was
earlier charge sheeted on 02.11.2017. The charge sheet
was again framed on 16.09.2023 against the accused
Deepak Suri, Balram Singh and Rajinder Singh. Rajinder
Singh and Balram Singh filed revision petition against
the order dt. 16.09.2023 and the revision was accepted by
the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The
prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and out of which
PW6 Balram Singh and PW7 Monita Sharma were
examined in chief on 30.09.2024 but the counsel for the
accused did not cross-examine the witnesses despite the
opportunities given to the accused and cross-examination
was ordered to be nil on 14.10.2024. PW 4 Gaurav
Ahluwalia District Manager of PUNSUP was examined
on 23.01.2019, 23.08.2024 and 20.09.2024 and his cross-
examination was conducted by the counsel for the
accused in parts on several times and concluded cross-
examination on 10.03.2025. On most of the dates the
accused sought exemption from personal appearance in5 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -6-the proceedings of this case. The prosecution evidence
was closed by order on 08.05.2025 and case adjourned to
21.05.2025 for recording statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C.
The accused took several adjournments and statement u/s
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.08.2025 and the case
adjourned to 22.09.2025 for defense evidence but neither
application for summoning of any witnesses was filed by
the accused nor was any witness examined in defense.
Even the accused himself did not appear and sought the
personal exemption and case was adjournment for
03.10.2025. Then the case was adjourned at the request
of the counsel for the accused on 09.10.2025 but no
witness was produced by the accused and costs was
imposed upon the accused and the case was then
adjourned to 14.10.2025 for production of the defense
witnesses but no witness was examined or summoned
inspite of the facts that the accused was having
knowledge of the record which now the accused has
applied for summoning of witnesses after the closure of
his evidence. Even no cost was deposited with DLSA. At
the request of the counsel for accused the case was
adjourned to 27.10.2025 subject to last opportunity for
DWs but no defense evidence was produced and the
defense evidence was closed by order and the case was
adjourned to 30.09.2025 for arguments and the present
application has been filed to summon witnesses.
2. That the accused was having knowledge of all the
records which has been mentioned in the application but
no document was put to the witnesses who were examined
by the prosecution and as such the accused cannot take
advantage of his own wrong. Even the documents which
were being summoned are not perse admissible and
required further evidence.
6 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -7-
3. That it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in
Virendra Singh Kushwah Versus State of Madhya
Pradesh that Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section
311- Summoning of defence witnesses-Application filed
by the accused to summon certain witnesses, who were
officers that conducted the inquiry leading to the criminal
case rejected-Held, enquiry report by an authority is
merely an opinion and not admissible unless its contents
are proved by evidence-Application found to be an
attempt to delay proceedings-Dismissal upheld.
6. On consideration of the pleadings and respective arguments, the
trial Court dismissed the application filed under Section 348 BNSS, vide its
order dated 02.01.2026, thus resulting in the institution of the present
petition.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and that
during the marketing season 2009-10, the procurement agencies procured
the new variety of rice ‘PAU-201’; which was non-standardized and without
quality check, as a result thereof, there was a shortage of custom milled rice.
The specifications prescribed by the Secretary and Director, Department of
Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab, had not been adhered to
by the procurement agencies. Thus, the shortage in the supply of milled rice
was not on account of any embezzlement but on account of the respondents
having failed to carry out the sampling analysis and adhere to the prescribed
norms before procurement of the stock. It was pleaded that in order for the
respondent to prove its case, the said witnesses were required to be
examined. She submits that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of “Varsha Garg versus the State of Madhya Pradesh
7 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -8-
and others”, reported as (2023) 19 SCC 646, the Court has wholesome
powers in terms of Section 311 CrPC to summon and re-examine the
material witnesses and closure of prosecution evidence is not an absolute
bar. She contends that such a power can be exercised at any stage if the
evidence appears to the Court to be essential for a just decision of the case.
She thus contends that the statutory provision is to be read substantively and
not as a tool to deny a fair opportunity to the parties in the lis. The relevant
extract thereof reads thus:-
48. The court is vested with a broad and wholesome
power, in terms of Section 311 CrPC, to summon and examine
or recall and re-examine any material witness at any stage and
the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar. This
Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh, (2004) 4 SCC 158 while
dealing with the prayers for adducing additional evidence
under Section 391 CrPC at the appellate stage, along with a
prayer for examination of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC
explained the role of the court, in the following terms : (SCC
pp. 188-89, para 43):
“43. The courts have to take a participatory role in
a trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to
record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. Section
311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act
confer vast and wide powers on presiding officers of
court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active
role in the evidence-collecting process. They have to
monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that
something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily
brought into record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss in
some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively so
that the ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. This
becomes more necessary where the court has reasons to
believe that the prosecuting agency or the prosecutor is
8 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -9-
not acting in the requisite manner. The court cannot
afford to be wishfully or pretend to be blissfully ignorant
or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or dereliction of duty
on the part of the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor
who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for
the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and
courts could not also play into the hands of such
prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an
attitude of total aloofness.”
(emphasis supplied)
49. Further, in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374, the Court reiterated the extent of
powers under Section 311 and held that : (SCC p. 392, para 27)
“27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there
may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either
party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving
ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from
either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to
the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for
the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper
exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under
the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the
prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a
general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and
trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue
summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial
or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs
is ‘at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding
under this Code’. It is, however, to be borne in mind that
whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on
summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be
exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the
necessity for application of judicial mind.”
9 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -10-
(emphasis supplied)
Xxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx
52. For the above reasons, we have come to the
conclusion that the decision of the High Court which is
impugned in the appeal is unsustainable. We accordingly allow
the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of
the High Court dated 8-4-2022 in Misc. Criminal Case No.
57152 of 2021 as well as the order of the Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Dr Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore dated 13-
11-2021 in Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2016 dismissing the
application filed by the prosecution. The application filed by the
prosecution for the production of the decoding registers and for
the summoning of the witnesses of the cellular companies for
that purpose is allowed. The Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Dr Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore is directed to conclude
Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2016 by 31-10-2022.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State, however, contends
that the present petition is misconceived and that the order dated 02.01.2026
has been rightly passed by the Trial Court after taking into consideration all
the circumstances. He contends that the chargesheet was earlier filed in
November 2017, and the charge was again framed on 16.09.2023. The
prosecution examined 08 witnesses, out of which PW-6 Balram Singh and
PW-7 Monita Sharma were examined-in-chief on 30.09.2024. Counsel for
the petitioner did not cross-examine the said witness despite multiple
opportunities, and cross-examination was ordered to be Nil on 14.10.2024.
PW-4 Gaurav Ahluwalia, District Manager of PUNSUP, was examined on
23.01.2019, 23.08.2024 and 20.09.2024; his cross-examination was
conducted by the counsel for the petitioner in parts on several occasions and
concluded on 10.03.2025. Neither of the said witnesses was confronted with
10 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -11-
any documents, nor were any suggestions made with respect to the
documents which are now sought to be produced. The prosecution evidence
was closed by order on 08.05.2025, and the case was adjourned for
recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to 21.05.2025. After
several adjournments by the petitioner, the statements were eventually
recorded on 20.08.2025, and incriminating material was put to him. No plea
of defence or reference to the said documents was made by the petitioner
during the course of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The matter
was thereafter fixed for 22.09.2025 for defence evidence, but no application
for the summoning of any other witness was filed by the petitioner-accused.
The matter was thereafter adjourned on 03.10.2025, 09.10.2025, 14.10.2025
and 27.10.2025.
9. The defence evidence was thus closed thereafter by order. He
contends that the instant application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved
only to delay the proceedings, without reflecting any significance of the
evidence or the testimony. He contends that the petitioner now wants to cull
out a new defence, notwithstanding that no such suggestion or defence had
been set up by the petitioner-accused by confronting the prosecution
witnesses or at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Varsha Garg(supra) is not being disputed;
however, considering the circumstances of the present case, the said
judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the evidence
has rightly not been allowed as it was never the line of defence adopted by
the petitioner and would amount to starting the evidence de novo. The
adjudication of the case is already much delayed and the trial commenced in
11 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -12-
the year 2017. It is on account of the delay on the part of the petitioner that
the trial has failed to conclude.
10. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and have gone through the documents appended along with the
present petition, as well as the judgment relied upon by Counsel for the
petitioner.
11. A specific question was put to the Counsel for the petitioner as
to whether any suggestion had been put to the prosecution witnesses, at the
time of their cross-examination, with respect to the relevance and in the
context of the documents/witnesses sought to be adduced or not. She fairly
concedes that no such suggestion had been put to the prosecution witnesses
at the time of recording their testimony.
12. A question was also put to the Counsel for the petitioner as to
whether any such plea of defence, based upon the documents now sought to
be exhibited, had been taken by the petitioner at the stage of their statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. She fairly concedes that no such plea had been
raised by the petitioner at the stage of recording of their statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.
13. It is further put to the Counsel for the petitioner as to whether
details of any witnesses to be cited by the petitioner were furnished before
the trial Court. She fairly concedes that no such list of witnesses was
furnished by the petitioners during the course of defence evidence, after
recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
14. In view of the aforesaid fair response, this Court now proceeds
further to examine the other arguments advanced by the Counsel for the
petitioner. While the ratio of the judgment laid down in the matter of Varsha
12 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -13-
Garg(supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not disputed, a judgment has
to be read in the facts of each case. The operative part of the order passed by
the trial Court reads thus:-
“4. The perusal of the record shows that the present case was
pending for defence evidence since 20.08.2025. The accused
had availed 5 opportunities over a period of more than two
months for his evidence but not even a single witness was
examined by him during the said period. Even no list of witness
was filed by the accused. Vide order dated 09.10.2025, cost of
Rs.1,000/- was also imposed upon the accused and last
opportunity was granted to him for his evidence. When no
witness was examined by the accused despite availing 5
opportunities and even the said cost was not paid by him, the
defence evidence was closed by Court order.
5. Shockingly, the accused did not even appear before the Court
on all the five dates when the case was listed for defence
evidence. The distance between Chandigarh and Patiala is less
than 100 kms and there was no impediment for the accused to
appear in the Court when the case was listed for defence
evidence.
6. The perusal of the record further shows that the
Ld. Defence Counsel had been seeking repeated adjournments
for concluding the cross-examination of the prosecution
witnesses. The so-called 50 adjournments availed by the
prosecution for concluding its evidence was the result of the
delaying tactics used by the accused during the cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses. The perusal of the
entire record would show that the complainant PW-4 Gaurav
Ahluwalia had to appear in the Court on 8 occasions for the Ld.
Defence Counsel to conclude his cross-examination. The Ld.
Defence Counsel could have asked the said witness to produce
the said record in the Court. PW-4 is an employee of PUNSUP
and he could have very easily produced the entire record which
13 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -14-
the accused wants to summon at this stage. It is not the case of
the accused that the Ld. Defence Counsel did not have sufficient
time during the cross-examination of the said witness as the
said witness had appeared in the Court 8 times for his cross-
examination. It is settled law that one who seeks equity must do
equity and equity is not in favour of the accused in the present
case.
7. The prosecution has rightly pointed out that the Ld. Defence
Counsel should have summoned the documents mentioned in the
present application during the prosecution evidence so as to put
the said documents to the witnesses of the prosecution who
would have the chance to give their explanation qua the
documents in question. No purpose would be served by
summoning the said documents at this stage.
8. The application shows that the accused has sought to
summon various documents from 6 Government offices without
even mentioning as to how each document is relevant to his
case. It appears that the purpose of the present application is to
delay the case/police challan which is already more than 8
years old. The FIR in question is more than 13 years old. If the
intention of the accused was bonafide, he would have taken the
assistance of the Court during the aforesaid 8 years to summon
the said documents. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view
that the documents referred in the application are of no
relevance for the purpose of deciding the present case.
Moreover, this Court has already closed the evidence of the
accused. This Court has no jurisdiction to review its order as
provided in Section 362 of Cr.P.C. It appears thai the purpose
of the present application is to prolong the present case and the
accused has been successfully doing it for the last 13 years. In
view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is satisfied that the
application in hand is devoid of any merits and the same is
hereby dismissed. It be tagged. Matter be now listed for final
arguments and for compliance of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. for
14 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -15-
12.01.2026. The accused is also directed to personally appear
before the Court on the said date and no adjournment
application of the accused shall be entertained. Short date is
given as the present case is more than 8 years old and it is an
Action Plan case.”
15. For the facility of reference, Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 is
extracted as under:-
Section 348 BNSS
“Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial
or other proceeding under this Sanhita, summon any
person as a witness, or examine any person in
attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall
and re-examine any person already examined; and the
Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-
examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to
be essential to the just decision of the case.
16. It is evident from a perusal of the above that the Court is
specifically empowered to summon any material witness or examine any
person who is present, even though not summoned as a witness, if the
evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The prime
consideration for summoning of any witness or as to whether such witnesses
are material and necessary for the “just decision”. The element of just
decision and the significance of the testimony have to be seen in the
circumstances of each case. The plea of the petitioner could have been well
made out had the prosecution witnesses been cross-examined with respect to
the defence sought to be argued and now sought to be proved before the
Court. The Counsel for the petitioner chose not to cross-examine two
witnesses and despite cross-examining a third witness on multiple occasions;
no suggestions of any nature whatsoever had been put to the prosecution
15 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -16-
witnesses in the context of the documents/evidence now sought to be
produced. No such defence was also taken even at the stage of Section 313
Cr. P.C. The relevance of the evidence sought to be examined has to be seen
in the context of the case already set up by the parties seeking re-
examination/further examination of material witnesses. Once the defence
was never established on the lines of the documents now sought to be
adduced, the petitioner cannot be permitted at this stage to reinvent a
defence under the garb of an application under Section 348 BNSS. Such
documents, even if adduced, cannot be taken into consideration since the
prosecution witnesses were never confronted with them and no such
suggestion was ever put to them at the stage of their cross-examination.
17. Section 348 BNSS is not meant to fill a lacuna and to afford a
new opportunity to invent a defence. It is only an aid for providing a fair
opportunity to a person to prove his/her case/innocence, in the event he/she
is unable to, on account of inadvertence or oversight. However, where no
such defence has been laid out at any stage at all by the accused, Section 311
Cr.P.C./Section 348 BNSS is not an enabling provision to pave the way for
inventing a fresh defence.
18. Finding no error, illegality or perversity in the order under
challenge, the present petition is dismissed at this stage.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
FEBRUARY 13, 2026 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
16 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
