Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vedant vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2026
CRM-M-38532-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225-2
CRM-M-38532-2025
Vedant . . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent
1. Date when the judgment was reserved 27.01.2026
2. Date when the judgment is pronounced 25.02.2026
3. Date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 26.02.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable.
judgment, and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate,
Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Aashutosh Jerath, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Jastej Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, has been
filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1),
passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, whereby the application,
dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-14), under Section 348 of BNSS, 2023
(erstwhile Section 311 of Cr.P.C.), filed by the prosecution for recalling
PW-4: SI Naresh Kumar (Investigating Officer), has been allowed.
2. Petitioner – Vedant and one more person, namely, Kamaljeet
1 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:38 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 2
Kumar @ Kamal, being accused, are facing trial in case FIR No. 242, dated
05.10.2022, under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act‘, registered at
Police Station STF, Phase-4, Mohali, District SAS Nagar.
Before registration of the FIR, a secret informant informed the
police team headed by SI Naresh Kumar that accused, namely (i) Vedant
(petitioner herein), and (ii) Kamaljeet Kumar @ Kamal, in connivance with
(iii) Honey Kumar Goyal, were engaged in the business of selling narcotic
drugs/pills without license and without bill in the area of Model Town,
Ludhiana. It was further informed that on that day i.e. 05.10.2022, they
would be coming on an Activa scooter, bearing registration No. PB-10-HU-
2566, near Krishna Hospital, Model Town, Ludhiana, to supply intoxicant
tablets to their customers/clients. The information being reliable was
forwarded to the Police Station for registration of the FIR and, thus, the
aforementioned criminal case came to be registered.
3. During investigation, both the accused persons were noticed
coming together on an Activa scooter. The driver disclosed his name as
Vedant (petitioner), and the pillion rider disclosed his name as Kamaljeet
Kumar @ Kamal. From the bag lying on the scooter, a total of 27,000
intoxicant tablets were recovered, i.e., Buprilex-N (3300 tablets) + Addnok-
N (700) + Addnok-N (19000) + Addnok-N (4000) = 27,000 tablets (in total).
After completion of investigation, final report under Section
173(2) of Cr.P.C. [Section 193(3) of BNSS, 2023] was submitted on
09.03.2023, against the petitioner and co-accused Kamaljeet Kumar @
Kamal, whereas name of the third co-accused Honey Kumar Goyal was
2 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 3
mentioned in Column No. 2. The role of one more accused, namely, Dr.
Amit Bansal, was also investigated, however, no challan against him was
presented.
Subsequent thereto, supplementary challan, under Section
173(8) of Cr.PC [Section 193(9) of BNSS, 2023] was also filed on
17.04.2023, against third co-accused Honey Kumar Goyal, charge-sheeting
him under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. Dr. Amit Bansal, earlier booked
under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, was discharged, because no cogent
evidence against him was found. Total 10 prosecution witnesses have been
examined as of now, i.e.;
(i) PW1 ASI Makhan Singh;
(ii) PW2 Inspector Balwinder Singh;
(iii) PW3 ASI Mohd. Sadiq;
(iv) PW4 SI Naresh Kumar;
(v) PW5 ASI Rajesh Kumar;
(vi) PW6 C. Gurmukh Singh;
(vii) PW7 Ravinder Singh, Clerk, RTO Office;
(viii) PW8 DSP Ajay Kumar;
(ix) PW9 ASI Sukhdev Singh; and
(x) PW10 Kaushlya Devi
4. On 26.03.2025, an application under Section 348 of BNSS,
2023 (Annexure P-14), was moved by the Additional Public Prosecutor, with
a prayer to recall PW4 – SI Naresh Kumar (Investigating Officer of the case)
for further examination-in-chief. In para No. 2 of the application it has been
stated that though the said witness was examined earlier but inadvertently
certain documents could not be put to him, and it would be necessary to
recall him to question regarding the following aspects, as the same are very
3 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 4
important for just adjudication of the case:-
(I) Disclosure statements of accused, dated 07.10.2022,
wherein accused Vedant (Petitioner) has disclosed certain
facts regarding Amit Bansal son of Subhash Bansal,
Vasika No. 5381, dated 30.08.2016;
(II) Lease deed executed between Ranjeet Singh, Manjeet
Singh and Amit Bansal, regarding the proprietorship of
Simran Hospital, situated at 242-L, Model Town,
Ludhiana;
(III) Regarding Activa Scooter, bearing registration No. PB-
10-HU- 2566; and
(IV) Inspection report prepared by the Drug Inspector of Joint
inspection of M/s Simran Hospital.
5. By filing reply/objection to the said application, prayer was
made for seeking dismissal of the application under Section 348 of BNSS,
2023. However, considering the aspects in its entirety, vide impugned order
dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), said application moved by the respondent
– State (Additional Public Prosecutor) was allowed by the learned Trial
Judge, by observing as under:-
“5. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxxThe object of the said provision thus is to elicit the truth from
the witness. Judicial record reflects that accused Vedant had
suffered a disclosure statement in which he had talked about
two more persons namely Amit Bansal and his Manager Honey
Goyal who was running his drug de-addiction centre Simran
Hospital out of whom Honey Goyal was placed by
investigating agency in column no.2 of report under Section
173 Cr.P.C and the other one Amit Bansal was exonerated by
investigating agency observing that no evidence was on record
to connect him with co-accused. It is noteworthy here that a
huge recovery of contraband was effected from the Activa
which was allegedly in possession of the accused which was
owned by Simran Hospital and as per the lease deed dated
05.12.2021 the premises of the said hospital was taken on lease4 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 5by the said Amit Bansal. When PW4 was examined the
documents relating to the said facts duly mentioned in challan
could not be proved by him on record which are essential to
connect accused with the vehicle from which recovery was
effected which belonged to some one else. On the other hand,
no prejudice will be caused to the accused if PW4 is recalled as
the accused would get enough opportunity to cross-examine the
witness. It was argued by learned counsel for accused Vedant
that disclosure statements were not admissible in evidence qua
the facts other than the ones leading to any discovery/recovery.
The probative value of any evidence/document would be
considered at the appropriate stage of trial and the application
of prosecution cannot be straight away dismissed on this
ground at this stage. Hence the case law relied upon by learned
counsel for accused Vedant as such is not applicable to the facts
of present case and do not lend any support to contentions
raised by him.
6. In view of discussion made above, instant application
stands allowed.”
This is how the instant petition has been filed by accused
Vedant (petitioner herein), primarily on the ground that by recording
examination-in-chief again of the Investigating Officer, i.e., SI Naresh
Kumar, nothing new can be brought on record as all such evidence is already
available on record.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING
THE PETITIONER:-
6. It is argued that Section 337 being part of CHAPTER XXVI
(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO INQUIRIES AND TRIAL) gives power
to the Court with regard to the framing of charge, if such an accused is
facing trial before the Court. Allowing of the application under Section 348
of BNSS, 2023, would not give any permission to frame any new charge or
creation of an evidence against the petitioner – Vedant or the accused
already facing trial. While submitting so, learned Senior counsel refers the
5 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 6contents of the application, wherein, nothing has been pleaded by the Public
Prosecutor. Rather, the application has been moved to prove the same facts,
which allegedly were disclosed by petitioner – Vedant in his disclosure
statement in regard to one person Dr. Amit Bansal, who is not even an
accused before the Trial Court, having been not charge-sheeted. Therefore,
inherent purpose of Chapter XXVI, containing the protection of Section 348
of BNSS, 2023, has to be understood and then applied for an accused, who
is already before the Court. Whereas, accused – Dr. Amit Bansal, has
already been discharged by the police, after conducting investigation. Thus,
application, dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-14), is in contravention of the
provisions of Chapter XXVI of BNSS, 2023. Therefore, nothing new can be
proved on record by producing PW4 – SI Naresh Kumar, viz-a-viz the
accused qua whom the trial is going on.
7. Further argued that the application has been moved at such a
belated stage, when prosecution had already closed its evidence and the
proceeding was fixed for recording of the statement of accused under
Section 351 of BNSS, 2023. By moving such application at such a belated
stage or allowing the same by the learned Trial Court, prosecution cannot be
permitted to enlarge the scope of the trial because, basically, power is vested
with the Court only for the purpose of obtaining the best and legally
admissible evidence in the perspective of the ongoing trial, on the basis of
the charges framed against the accused before it. Application, denotes that
prosecution wants to bring the facts on record, which will enable it to
summon Dr. Amit Bansal as an additional accused, as the main accused.
8. Further argued that while allowing the application, learned Trial
6 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 7
Court has referred to the discovery of contraband from a two wheeler
(Activa scooter), owned by Simran Hospital and further highlighted the
disclosure of facts by the accused already facing trial, implicating Dr. Amit
Bansal and Manager – Honey Kumar Goyal in his statement.
Since, Dr. Amit Bansal is not a charge-sheeted accused, before
allowing of application under Section 348 of BNSS, 2023, to bring on record
the facts qua Dr. Amit Bansal, is against the basic spirit of Chapter XXVI.
9. Learned Senior counsel further argued that there was no such
necessity for the Court to allow the application under Section 348 of BNSS,
2023, as in no way any charge can be framed against the accused facing trial
including the accused – Kamaljeet Kumar @ Kamal, whose disclosure
statement dated 27.10.2022, already stands proved by PW9 – ASI Sukhdev
Singh as Ex.PW3/13.
Even lease-deed with respect to the property in favour of
Simran Hospital already stands proved by PW10 – Kaushlya Devi, owner of
the premises in question. Said rent-deed is already on record as Ex.PW10/2.
Similarly, PW7 – Ravinder Singh, Clerk RTO office, already
proved the ownership of Activa scooter in the name of Simran Hospital, by
producing document Ex. PW7/A.
Thus, broadly, it was being argued that application moved under
Section 348 of BNSS, 2023, is completely misconceived, because the
evidence to the effect has already been led on all the aspects on the case
record, before trial Court.
10. Further argued that it is beyond controversy that the prosecution
has itself planned to utilize the evidence, sought to be brought on record for
7 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 8
an entirely different purpose, namely, to make out a case against Dr. Amit
Bansal and then to get him summoned, who already stood discharged. Thus,
allowing of application is nothing but enlarging the scope of Chapter XXVI
and the very purpose of the provision under Section 348 of BNSS, 2023.
Therefore, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner prayed for
setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), same
being wholly unwarranted in the perspective of the present trial.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED STATE COUNSEL:
11. On the other hand, learned State counsel while arguing
regarding sustainability of the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure
P-1), passed by the learned Trial Court, and opposing the arguments
advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the
provision of Section 348 of BNSS, 2023 gives ample power to the Court that
can be exercised at any stage during inquiry/trial by recalling or re-
examination of any person already examined, even by summoning any other
person as a witness, in case is found that such evidence would be essential
for the just decision of the case.
12. Learned State counsel further argued that may be, the evidence
which is being sought to be put to PW4 – SI Naresh Kumar (Investigating
Officer of the case) by recalling him for examination-in-chief, is already
there on record, still it is imperative for the prosecution that the same is also
proved in the words of the investigating officer of the case, who collected
such material facts during investigation. Unless, it is being deposed by the
said witness, it may be taken as missing of link evidence in the case.
13. Lastly, learned State counsel submitted that, in fact, accused –
8 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 9
Vedant (petitioner herein), has got instituted that instant petition as a proxy
petitioner, with the sole purpose of safeguarding the interests of someone
else, who may not be an accused before the Court as on date. One fails to
understand as to why and for what purpose the petitioner is trying hard to
deprive the Court from bringing the factual position on record, which was
created during the course of investigation by a particular Investigating
Officer, viz-a-viz, some other accused/person also. Prosecution is duty
bound to bring on record all such facts, even if some one has been left out
inadvertently, or left it to the wisdom of the Court to exercise it’s power
vested under Chapter XXVI to allow or not, looking at the interest of justice
or essential to the just decision of the case.
Learned State counsel, thus, prayed for dismissal of the instant
petition.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:-
14. I have considered the record and the appended documents with
the petition, apart hearing learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as
well as learned State counsel representing the respondent – State.
15. In the application dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-14), under
Section 348 of BNSS, 2023, a precise contention is that PW4 – SI Naresh
Kumar, Investigating Officer, during his examination inadvertently could not
mention about the documents, as same were not put to him. The disclosure
statement, dated 17.10.2022, wherein, accused – Vedant (petitioner herein)
disclosed certain facts regarding Dr. Amit Bansal; Vasika No. 5381, dated
30.08.2016; lease deed executed between Ranjeet Singh, Manjeet Singh and
Amit Bansal regarding the proprietorship of Simran Hospital, situated at
9 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 10
242-L, Model Town, Ludhiana; regarding Active Scooter, bearing
registration No. PB-10-HU- 2566; and inspection report prepared by the
Drug Inspector of Joint inspection of M/s Simran Hospital
16. First of all, this Court would like to look at the disclosure
statements, dated 05.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, of petitioner – Vedant,
recorded by none else, but PW4 – SI Naresh Kumar, which reads as under:-
“DISCLOSURE STATEMENT U/S 27 OF EVIDENCE ACT
In the presence of following witness, during enquiries,
accused Vedant son of Ajay Kumar made disclosure statement
before me that, “Some days ago, my Senior manager Hunny
Goel son of Bhola Ram, resident of Barnala had got procured a
parcel of intoxicating tablets and he had told me and Kamaljit
Kumar alias Kamal, who works with me as Lab Attendant in
Simran Drug De-addiction Centre, 242-L, Model Town,
Ludhiana, to keep this parcel with you at your rented Kothi at
New Kartar Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana by hiding it at some
confidential place. We three will equally divide the profit after
selling these intoxicating tablets. Then on the saying of Senior
Manager Hunny Goel, under the lure of money, I and Kamaljit
Kumar alias Kamal brought the parcel on the activa of the
company to our rented Kothi No.182/32-A, Street No.6, New
Kartar Nagar, Ludhiana provided by the company and had hid
the same in the clothes lying in the double-bed of our room,
which fact is known to me and Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamal
only. I can got recovered that parcel of intoxicating tablets upon
my identification by visiting the place with you.” On this, the
disclosure statement of accused Vedant above under Section 27
of the Evidence Act has been typewritten, which was read over
to accused Vedant, who the statement, after hearing and reading
admitted it to be correct. After getting the print out of his
disclosure statement with the assistance of printer, the
signatures of the accused and testimony of the witnesses are
being appended on the same.
Accused Vedant above
Sd/-
Witness: 1. ASI Mohammed Sadiq No. 614/Ldh.
Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range
Sd/-
2. ASI Paramjit Singh No. 462/Ldh.
Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range
10 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 11Sd/-
Sd/- Naresh Kumar, SI
Special Task Force,
Ludhaiana Range
Dated: 05.10.2022
Attested by
Sd/- Ajay Kumar
Deputy Supdt. Of Police,
Special Task Force,
Ludhiana Range
Dated: 05.10.2022″
On 07.10.2022, another disclosure statement was recorded by
SI Naresh Kumar, which reads as under:-
“DISCLOSURE STATEMENT U/S 27 OF EVIDENCE ACT
In the presence of following witness, the intense
enquiries made during police remand, accused Vedant son of
Ajay Kumar made disclosure statement before me that, “Amit
Bansal son of Subhash Bansal, resident of Sector 28-A,
Chandigarh, Owner of Simran Drug De-Addiction Centre,
Model Town, Ludhiana, had provided an Activa Scooter
bearing No.PB-10HU-2566 white coloured to me and Kamaljit
Kumar alias Kamal, for doing the works of Drug De-addiction
Centre,Model Town and for commuting from Kothi, New
Kartar Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana and upon receiving the of
calls from different mobile numbers and whatsapp calls by his
customers regarding purchase tablets, Hunny Goel son of Bhola
Ram, resident of Barnala, District Barnala used to send me and
Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamal to deliver tablets of BUPRILEX-
N and Addnok-N, as per the demands of the customers, at the
place told by the customers, on the above numbered active
scooter of the hospital and I and Kamaljit alias Kamal used to
deliver the tablets to his customers after reaching at the place
told by him, as per the identification narrated by him. After
receiving payment from the customers for the tablets, we used
to handover the same to Hunny Goel. He used to pay us our due
commission. Apart from this, Hunny Goel used to get placed
the tablets of BUPRILEX-N and Addnok-N procured without
bill, at the kothi taken on lease at Mohalla New Kartar Dhuri
Line, Nagar, I and Ludhiana through us. Kamaljit alias Kamal
were also residing in that kothi. Hunny Goel had promised to
both of us for paying heavy commission apart from salary to
under the lure of supplying maximum tablets of us BUPRILEX-
N and Addnok-N to the customers outside the hospital. Hunny
Goel used to send the tablets of BUPRILEX-N and Addnok-N
with bill and without bill, through different transporters, to the
Drug De- Addiction Centre, Model Town, Ludhiana. They used11 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 12to keep tablets with bills at Drug De-addiction Centre and
tablets without bill at above rented house. Hunny Goel used to
say to us that he has talked with owner Amit Bansal, you do not
worry, I will take care of everything and will also get your
salary increased from the owner, on which, the disclosure
statement of accused Vedant above under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act has been typewritten, which was read over to
accused Vedant, who after hearing and reading the statement,
admitted it to be correct. After getting the print out of his memo
disclosure statement with the assistance of printer, the
signatures of the accused and testimony of the witnesses are
being appended on the same.
Accused Vedant above
Sd/-
Witness: 1. ASI Sukhdev Singh No. 2402/Ldh.
Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range
Sd/-
2. Senior Constable Kuldeep Singh No. 487/Ldh.
Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range
Sd/-
Sd/- Naresh Kumar, SI
Special Task Force,
Ludhaiana Range
Dated: 07.10.2022″
17. Similarly, other co-accused Kamaljeet Kumar @ Kamal also got
recorded his disclosure statements on 05.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, which
were also recorded by PW4 – SI Naresh Kumar, being Investigating Officer
of the case.
For reference, disclosure statements dated 05.10.2022 and
07.10.2022, made by co-accused Kamaljeet Kumar @ Kamal, are also
reproduced here-under:-
(i) Disclosure statement dated 05.10.2022
“DISCLOSURE STATEMENT U/S 27 OF EVIDENCE ACT
In the presence of below mentioned witnesses, during enquiry,
accused Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamal son of Tarlok Chand has12 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 13made disclosure statement before me that, “Some days ago, my
Senior manager Hunny Goel son of Bhola Ram, resident of
Barnala had got procured a parcel of intoxicating tablets and he
had told me and Vedant, who works with me as Assistant
Manager in Simran Drug De-addiction Centre, 242-L, Model
Town, Ludhiana, to keep this parcel with you at your rented
Kothi at New Kartar Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana by hiding it
at some confidential place. We three will equally divide the
profit after selling these intoxicating tablets. Then on the
saying of Senior Manager Hunny Goel, under the lure of
money, I and Vedant brought the parcel on the active of the
company to our rented Kothi No.182/32-A, Street No.6, New
Kartar Nagar, Ludhiana provided by the company and had hid
the same in the clothes lying in the double-bed of our room,
which fact is known to me and Vedant only. We can got
recovered that parcel of intoxicating tablets upon our
identification by visiting the place with you.” On this, the above
disclosure statement of accused Vedant under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act has been typewritten, which was read over to
accused Kamaljit Singh alias Kamal, who after hearing and
reading the statement, admitted it to be correct. After getting the
print out of his disclosure statement with the assistance of
printer, the signatures of the accused and testimony of the
witnesses are being appended on the same.
Accused Kamaljeet Singh
alias Kamal above
Sd/-
Witness: 1. ASI Mohammed Sadiq No. 614/Ldh.
Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range
Sd/-
2. ASI Paramjit Singh No. 462/Ldh.
Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range
Sd/-
Sd/- Naresh Kumar, SI
Special Task Force,
Ludhaiana Range
Dated: 05.10.2022
Attested by
Sd/- Ajay Kumar
Deputy Supdt. Of Police,
Special Task Force,
Ludhiana Range
Dated: 05.10.2022″
(ii) Disclosure statement dated 07.10.2022
“DISCLOSURE STATEMENT U/S 27 OF EVIDENCE ACT
13 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 14In the presence of following witness, on the intense enquiries
made during police remand, accused Kamaljit Kumar alias
Kamal son of Tarlok Chand made disclosure statement before
me that, “Amit Bansal son of Subhash Bansal, resident of
Sector 28-A, Chandigarh, Owner of Simran Drug De-Addiction
Centre, Model Town, Ludhiana, had provided an Activa Scooter
bearing No.PB-10HU-2566 white coloured to me and Vedant,
for doing the works of Drug De-addiction Centre, Model Town
and for commuting from Kothi, New Kartar Nagar, Model
Town, Ludhiana and upon receiving the calls from different
mobile numbers and whatsapp calls by his customers regarding
purchase of tablets, Hunny Goel son of Bhola Ram, resident of
Barnala, District Barnala used to send me and Vedant to deliver
tablets of BUPRILEX-N and Addnok-N, as per the demands of
the customers, at the place told by the customers, on the above
numbered active scooter of the hospital. I and Vedant used to
deliver the tablets to his customers after reaching at the place
told by him, as per the identification narrated by him. After
receiving payment from the customers for the tablets, we used
to handover the same to Hunny Goel. He used to pay us our due
commission. Apart from this, Hunny Goel used to get placed
the tablets of BUPRILEX-N and Addnok-N procured without
bill, at the kothi taken on lease at Mohalla New Kartar Nagar,
Dhuri Line, Ludhiana through us. I and Vedant were also
residing in that kothi. Hunny Goel had promised to both of us
for paying heavy commission apart from salary to us under the
lure of supplying maximum tablets of BUPRILEX-N and
Addnok-N to the customers outside the hospital. Hunny Goel
used to send the tablets of BUPRILEX-N and Addnok-N with
bill and without bill, through different transporters, to the Drug
De-Addiction Centre, Model Town, Ludhiana. They used to
keep tablets with bills at Drug De-addiction Centre and tablets
without bill at above rented house. Hunny Goel used to say to
us that he has talked with owner Amit Bansal, you do not
worry, I will take care of everything and will also get your
salary increased from the owner, on which, the disclosure
statement of accused Vedant above under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act has been typewritten, which was read over to
accused Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamal, who after hearing and
reading the statement, admitted it to be correct. After getting the
print out of his memo of disclosure statement with the
assistance of printer, the signatures of the accused and
testimony of the witnesses are being appended on the same.
Accused Kamaljit Kumar
alias Kamal above
Sd/-
Witness: 1. ASI Sukhdev Singh No. 2402/Ldh.
Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range
14 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 15
Sd/-
2. Senior Constable Kuldeep Singh No. 487/Ldh.
Special Task Force, Ludhiana Range
Sd/-
Sd/- Naresh Kumar, SI
Special Task Force,
Ludhaiana Range
Dated: 07.10.2022″
18. Though the aforementioned disclosure statements have been
proved by PW3 – Mohd. Sadiq in his statement and also by PW9 – ASI
Sukhdev Singh, when they appeared in the witness-box as witnesses thereof,
however, it is an admitted position that all the facts mentioned in those
disclosure statements were recorded by none else but PW4 – SI Naresh
Kumar. However, while appearing in the witness-box, he failed to discharge
his duty by not mentioning much about the facts disclosed in the said
disclosure statements by the aforesaid accused.
19. It is also apposite to mention here that name of the third accused
in the case, i.e. Honey Kumar Goyal, was initially mentioned in Column
No.2. Thereafter, supplementary challan, dated 17.04.2023, against him was
filed and he was charge sheeted under Section 27 of the NDPS Act.
However, after confession of guilt, the said third accused was sentenced to
undergo 15 days’ rigorous imprisonment, i.e., the period already undergone
by him, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week, vide order
dated 28.07.2023. After the fine amount was paid, he was ordered to be
released by the Court.
It would not be out of place to notice here that PW4 – SI Naresh
15 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 16Kumar, who was the Investigating Officer of the case qua accused Honey
Kumar Goyal, submitted the supplementary challan, but gave a clean chit to
Dr. Amit Bansal merely by observing that no evidence was available against
him.
Activa Scooter, bearing No. PB-10-HU-2566, was found to be
registered in the name of Simran Hospital, which is being run by none else
than Dr. Amit Bansal. It was also found that the owner of Simran Drug De-
addiction Centre, Model Town, Ludhiana, is Dr. Amit Bansal. The rent deeds
with regard to the said hospital are also on record, which facts are now
sought to be brought out through the testimony of SI Naresh Kumar,
Investigating Officer.
Though this is not the stage to examine whether Dr. Amit
Bansal was given a clean chit rightly or wrongly, yet the fact remains that all
these aspects were disclosed by the accused in their disclosure statements,
which were penned down by none else but SI Naresh Kumar. Therefore, the
facts stated therein, recorded in the form of disclosure statements before the
Investigating Officer, were required to be stated in evidence, which he failed
to mention while appearing in examination-in-chief.
In the impugned order also, learned Trial Court has taken note
of the fact that in the disclosure statement of accused Vedant, he referred two
more persons, namely, Amit Bansal and Manager Honey Goyal, who were
running the Drug De-addiction Centre, i.e., Simran Hospital. A huge
recovery of 27,000 tablets was effected from the Activa Scooter, which was
in possession of the accused and was owned by Simran Hospital, run by Dr.
Amit Bansal.
16 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 17
20. From the impugned order, it also becomes clear that documents
relating to these facts could not be proved by PW4 on record, which, in fact,
are essential to connect the accused with the vehicle from where recovery of
contraband was effected, i.e., Activa scooter, bearing No. PB-10-HU-2566,
which belongs to someone else.
The concept of Section 348 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 311
Cr.P.C.), i.e. calling a witness again to depose certain facts which, though
already on record, were omitted to be stated in his own testimony, cannot be
termed as “recalling of a witness to fill up lacuna in the case of the
prosecution”. Even this is not the argument of the petitioner herein that a
lacuna is being filled up. Rather, the stand of the petitioner is that the facts
which the prosecution now proposes to bring on record through SI Naresh
Kumar have already been proved by other witnesses.
This Court fails to understand that being so, why the impugned
order has been assailed by the petitioner, and, therefore, it appears to be a
proxy litigation filed by the petitioner – Vedant by speculating the future
course of action, which may or may not be initiated by the Court qua any
other person, including Dr. Amit Bansal.
21. This Court also feels that by calling the witness, the learned
Trial Court appears to have realized that on the aspect sought to be proved,
examination of SI Naresh Kumar is essential, and accordingly ordered his
recall. Even by allowing the application, there would be no change in the
nature of the case against any party, as the documents are already on record.
The primary object is that ‘the power is to be exercised for the just decision
of the case as a whole and not merely qua the accused presently before the
17 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 18Court’.
While exercising such power, the Court is empowered to
examine the situation holistically and assess the implications of allowing
such a prayer, which may affect the final adjudication of the case. Under
Section 348 of BNSS, 2023, the expression “essential to the just decision of
the case” implies not only the rights of the accused before the Court but also
encompasses a broader perspective, including the possibility that any other
person, if found involved or wrongly exonerated, he could also be called to
join the proceedings in the case, so that the just decision of the case be done
by such Court.
Thus, it can be concluded safely that the provision of Section
348 of BNSS, 2023 can be exercised at any stage during inquiry/trial by
recalling or ex-examination of any person already examined, even by
summoning any other person as a witness, if such evidence appears to be
essential to the just decision of the case. Therefore, arguments viz-a-viz
interest of the party facing trial accused before the Court, is rather
misconceived concept because the power is exercisable for the just decision
of the case as a whole and not qua the accused only, who is/are before it.
22. In the present proceedings, this Court would refrain from going
into the aspect that SI Naresh Kumar, being the Investigating Officer, did not
file challan against one of the accused, namely, Dr. Amit Bansal, and merely
observed in the final report that no connecting evidence was available
against him. Further, while appearing in the witness-box, he did not state
anything regarding the facts mentioned in the disclosure statements and
other aspects, which are now sought to be proved by recalling him. Any such
18 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 19observation at this stage may prejudice the rights of either party.
23. The views expressed by this Court are fortified from the
judgment of this Court in the case of Gurdit Singh and others v. State of
Punjab (CRM-M-69179-2025, decided on 09.12.2025). The relevant
paragraph No.11 of Gurdit Singh’s case (supra) is reproduced here-under:-
“11. Similarly, this Court in Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh
Chauhan v. Gurmeet Singh and another (supra), while referring
to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajaram Prasad
Yadav v. State of Bihar and another, 2013(3) RCR (Crl.) 726,
and Manan SK v. State of West Bengal, (2014) 13 SCC 59, has
observed as under:-
“12. A three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court also examined the aforesaid issue in 2013 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 726 Rajaram Prasad Yadav v.
State of Bihar and another. In the said case, the
trial Court disallowed the application filed by State
under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Cr.P.C.), to re-examine PW-9, the
informant. The High Court reversed the order and
allowed the said application. While discussing a
plethora of judgements, the broad principles with
regard to invoking section 311 Cr.PC were culled
out as under:
“23. From a conspectus consideration of
the above decisions, while dealing with an
application under Section 311 Criminal
Procedure Code read along with Section 138
of the Evidence Act, we feel the following
principles will have to be borne in mind by
the Courts:
a) Whether the Court is right in thinking
that the new evidence is needed by it?
Whether the evidence sought to be led in
under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a
just decision of a case?
b) The exercise of the widest
discretionary power under Section 311
Criminal Procedure Code should ensure that
the judgment should not be rendered on
inchoate, inconclusive speculative19 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 20presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of
justice would be defeated.
c) If evidence of any witness appears to
the Court to be essential to the just decision
of the case, it is the power of the Court to
summon and examine or recall and re-
examine any such person.
d) The exercise of power under Section
311 Criminal Procedure Code should be
resorted to only with the object of finding
out the truth or obtaining proper proof for
such facts, which will lead to a just and
correct decision of the case.
e) The exercise of the said power cannot
be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a
prosecution case, unless the facts and
circumstances of the case make it apparent
that the exercise of power by the Court
would result in causing serious prejudice to
the accused, resulting in miscarriage of
justice.
f) The wide discretionary power should
be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
g) The Court must satisfy itself that it
was in every respect essential to examine
such a witness or to recall him for further
examination in order to arrive at a just
decision of the case.
h) The object of Section 311 Criminal
Procedure Code simultaneously imposes a
duty on the Court to determine the truth and
to render a just decision.
i) The Court arrives at the conclusion
that additional evidence is necessary, not
because it would be impossible to pronounce
the judgment without it, but because there
would be a failure of justice without such
evidence being considered.
j) Exigency of the situation, fair play
and good sense should be the safe guard,
while exercising the discretion. The Court20 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 21should bear in mind that no party in a trial
can be foreclosed from correcting errors and
that if proper evidence was not adduced or a
relevant material was not brought on record
due to any inadvertence, the Court should be
magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to
be rectified.
k) The Court should be conscious of the
position that after all the trial is basically for
the prisoners and the Court should afford an
opportunity to them in the fairest manner
possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would
be safe to err in favour of the accused getting
an opportunity rather than protecting the
prosecution against possible prejudice at the
cost of the accused. The Court should bear in
mind that improper or capricious exercise of
such a discretionary power, may lead to
undesirable results.
l) The additional evidence must not be
received as a disguise or to change the
nature of the case against any of the party.
m) The power must be exercised keeping
in mind that the evidence that is likely to be
tendered, would be germane to the issue
involved and also ensure that an opportunity
of rebuttal is given to the other party.
n) The power under Section 311
Criminal Procedure Code must therefore, be
invoked by the Court only in order to meet
the ends of justice for strong and valid
reasons and the same must be exercised with
care, caution and circumspection. The Court
should bear in mind that fair trial entails the
interest of the accused, the victim and the
society and, therefore, the grant of fair and
proper opportunities to the persons
concerned, must be ensured being a
constitutional goal, as well as a human
right.”
xx xxx xx xxx
16. The judgment pressed into service by
learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Mannan Sk.
21 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 22And others v. State of West Bengal and another
2014(13) SCC, 59 was a case where the trial Court
had dismissed the application moved by
prosecution under section 311 Cr.P.C. but the order
was reversed by the High Court. The matter
pertained to offence under Section 302 IPC
wherein the Investigating Officer during his cross-
examination has stated that he has recorded the
statement of the deceased before his death, but no
such statement had in fact been brought on record.
The prosecution had moved an application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. at the stage when the matter
was fixed for arguments. The purpose of recalling
the witness of the prosecution was to place on
record a statement which was virtually in the
nature of dying declaration. The importance of a
dying declaration in a case where there is no direct
evidence can hardly be undermined. Further, in the
said case accused were found to be aware of the
said statement and had duly cross-examined the
Investigating Officer in this regard and it was
under these circumstances Hon’ble the Supreme
Court while affirming order of High Court
observed that it was a case of oversight that the
document could not be placed on record earlier and
not a case of filling up lacuna.
17. However, even in Mannan‘s case, the broad
view taken by Apex Court is in tune with the ratio
of Rajaram‘s case (Supra). The Supreme Court of
India in Mannan‘s case (Supra) held as under:
“10. The aim of every court is to discover
truth. Section 311 of the Code is one of
many such provisions of the Code which
strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to
ferret out the truth by procedure sanctioned
by law. It is couched in very wide terms. It
empowers the court at any stage of any
inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the
Code to summon any person as a witness or
examine any person in attendance, though
not summoned as witness or recall and re-
examine already examined witness. The
second part of the Section uses the word
‘shall’. It says that the court shall summon
and examine or recall or re-examine any
such person if his evidence appears to it to
be essential to the just decision of the case.
22 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 23The words ‘essential to the just decision of
the case’ are the key words. The court must
form an opinion that for the just decision of
the case recall or reexamination of the
witness is necessary. Since the power is wide
it’s exercise has to be done with
circumspection. It is trite that wider the
power greater is the responsibility on the
courts which exercise it. The exercise of this
power cannot be untrammelled and arbitrary
but must be only guided by the object of
arriving at a just decision of the case. It
should not cause prejudice to the accused. It
should not permit the prosecution to fill-up
the lacuna. Whether recall of a witness is for
filling-up of a lacuna or it is for just decision
of a case depends on facts and circumstances
of each case. In all cases it is likely to be
argued that the prosecution is trying to fill-
up a lacuna because the line of demarcation
is thin. It is for the court to consider all the
circumstances and decide whether the prayer
for recall is genuine.”
xx xxx xx xxx
xx xxx xx xxx
24. As already noticed above, while the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consistently held that Court has
vast powers to summon or recall any witness with
the aid of Section 311 Cr.P.C. at any stage but such
application can only be allowed if the Court comes
to a conclusion that it is absolutely necessary to do
so for just decision in the matter. Such application
is neither to be allowed to fill up lacuna nor can be
allowed to be made as a tool to delay trial. While
this Court cannot dispute that the right to fair trial
is a crucial and precious right of the accused, but
so is the complainant’s right to a fair trial which
requires that they should not unnecessarily be
harassed. Ensuring a fair trial can not be
interpreted to mean that the accused has to be
afforded opportunities of recalling witnesses for
further cross-examination at the mere asking. The
case of an accused has to be meritorious where
such prayer is made. The Hon’ble Apex Court in
case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav
(2016) 2 SCC 402 had emphasized that fairness of
a trial has to be seen, not only from the perspective23 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
CRM-M-38532-2025 24of accused, but also of the victim and society.
Thus, this Court also has a duty to ensure an
expeditious and fair trial, preventing misuse of
such applications for delaying the proceedings
before the learned Trial Court.”.”
24. As a sequel to above discussion, I do not find any illegality,
infirmity or any defect in the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure
P-1), passed by the learned Trial Court, warranting any interference by this
Court.
Accordingly, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
February 25, 2026
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
24 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 00:29:39 :::
