CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Sandeep Kaur @ Sheepa State of Punjab CORAM: Present : SUMEET GOEL 1. Act, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein), under Section 311 of Cr prosecution witnesses i.e. PW Singh and PW examination 2. impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for recalling the aforesaid prosecution witnesses for effective cross the Court below Referring to Annexures P cross-examination of the aforesaid witness, learned counsel has submitted that the earlier cross -37911-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sandeep Kaur @ Sheepa V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conference). Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein), under Section 311 of Cr prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 SI Jarnail Singh, PW Singh and PW-5 ASI Ajay Kumar for examination has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for recalling the aforesaid prosecution witnesses for effective cross-examination has been erroneously dismissed by the Court below which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Referring to Annexures P-3 to P-5 i.e. examination examination of the aforesaid witness, learned counsel has submitted that the earlier cross-examination of these witnesses was s 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37911-2025 Date of decision: 02.08.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conference). Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. ***** The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein), under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, for recalling of the 1 SI Jarnail Singh, PW-3 ASI Kulwinder 5 ASI Ajay Kumar for the purpose of further cross Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for recalling the aforesaid prosecution examination has been erroneously dismissed by serious prejudice to the petitioner. 5 i.e. examination-in-chief and incomplete examination of the aforesaid witness, learned counsel has submitted examination of these witnesses was superficial and .2025 The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby the application filed by the of the 3 ASI Kulwinder the purpose of further cross- the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for recalling the aforesaid prosecution examination has been erroneously dismissed by serious prejudice to the petitioner. chief and incomplete examination of the aforesaid witness, learned counsel has submitted uperficial and AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.02 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- ineffective and the right to an effective cross component of a fair trial. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was in custody during COVID was largely during this period, hence the petitioner could not fully avail the opportunity of cross examination of According to learned counsel, the impugned order is in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It has been further iterated that can be permitted in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set aforesaid key witnesses to c the interest of justice. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand 3. the instant petition any illegality. learned State counsel has submitted that the aforesaid prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW PW-5 was examined witnesses were duly cross 25.04.2022 same date. According to -37911-2025 ineffective and the right to an effective cross component of a fair trial. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was in custody during COVID-19 pandemic i.e. when the functioning of the Court was largely disrupted and the presence of the accused was exempted during this period, the aforesaid prosecution witnesses were examined and the petitioner could not fully avail the opportunity of cross examination of these witnesses due to the circumstances According to learned counsel, the impugned order is in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It has been further iterated that it is a settled principle of law that the recall of witnesses e permitted in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set aforesaid key witnesses to conduct proper and effective cross the interest of justice. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the the instant petition by arguing that the impugned order any illegality. Referring to the reply dated 30.07.2025 learned State counsel has submitted that the aforesaid prosecution witnesses 1 and PW-3 were examined-in- 5 was examined-in-chief on 15.11.2021 respectively. All these witnesses were duly cross-examined by the couns 2022, following which the prosecution evidence was closed on the same date. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner was afforded 2 ineffective and the right to an effective cross-examination is a fundamental component of a fair trial. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was in 19 pandemic i.e. when the functioning of the Court disrupted and the presence of the accused was exempted and prosecution witnesses were examined and the petitioner could not fully avail the opportunity of cross witnesses due to the circumstances beyond his control. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It has been it is a settled principle of law that the recall of witnesses e permitted in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial. It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set-aside and prays for recall of the onduct proper and effective cross-examination in the interest of justice. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of counsel appearing for the State has opposed by arguing that the impugned order does not suffer from Referring to the reply dated 30.07.2025 filed by the State learned State counsel has submitted that the aforesaid prosecution witnesses -chief on 06.09.2021 whereas and chief on 15.11.2021 respectively. All these examined by the counsel for the petitioner on following which the prosecution evidence was closed on the learned State counsel, the petitioner was afforded examination is a fundamental component of a fair trial. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was in 19 pandemic i.e. when the functioning of the Court and prosecution witnesses were examined and the petitioner could not fully avail the opportunity of cross- beyond his control. unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It has been it is a settled principle of law that the recall of witnesses It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and recall of the examination in the interest of justice. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of has opposed does not suffer from filed by the State, learned State counsel has submitted that the aforesaid prosecution witnesses 6.09.2021 whereas and chief on 15.11.2021 respectively. All these el for the petitioner on following which the prosecution evidence was closed on the learned State counsel, the petitioner was afforded AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.02 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- ample opportunity further submitted that the petitioner compelling reason for seeking recall considerable lapse of time. Fu afterthought, especially when the case has already progressed to the stage of defence evidence and arguments. has rightly dismissed the instant application for recalling witnesses by a well petition is entreated for. 4. the paper- 5. Court in case titled as 2024 NCPHHC 24178 -37911-2025 ample opportunity to effectively cross- further submitted that the petitioner has not shown any justifiable or compelling reason for seeking recall of the aforesaid witnesses considerable lapse of time. Furthermore, afterthought, especially when the case has already progressed to the stage of defence evidence and arguments. According to State counsel, has rightly dismissed the instant application for recalling witnesses by a well-reasoned order and hence the petition is entreated for. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and peru -book. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178; relevant whereof reads as under: “8.4 As an epilogue to the above emerge: (I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows: (i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence “ decision of the case.” (ii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court even when cross-examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the C the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order. (iii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even allow further examination/cross-examination of a witness at instance of the prosecution/accused. (iv) A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such Court is seized of the matter. 3 -examine these witnesses. He has has not shown any justifiable or of the aforesaid witnesses after a thermore, the instant application is an afterthought, especially when the case has already progressed to the stage of According to State counsel, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the instant application for recalling the aforesaid order and hence the dismissal of the instant I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and peru It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: relevant whereof reads as under:- As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows: The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of vidence “appears to be essential to the just Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even examination of a witness at instance of A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such He has has not shown any justifiable or after a the instant application is an afterthought, especially when the case has already progressed to the stage of the trial Court the aforesaid dismissal of the instant I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: rumination, the following principles The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court appears to be essential to the just Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a ourt cannot be construed as Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even examination of a witness at instance of A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.02 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 6. connection with FIR No.129 dated 11.09.2020, registered at Police Station Chabbewa Diacetylmorphine. The case was registered under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, the charge before the concerned trial Court on 05.02.2 on 08.04.2021. The examination PW-3 ASI Kulwinder Singh was conducted on 06.09.2021 and that of PW ASI Ajay Kumar on 15.11.2021. All the three witnesses were duly cross examined by t prosecution evidence was closed. accused Ashok Kumar @ Shoka a proclaimed offender on 14.01.2025. 6.1. Section 311 of the Code was filed on behalf of the seeking recalling of the aforesaid witnesses -37911-2025 (v) A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition. (vi) Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination/re-examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection. (II) No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to l lines as every case is sui generis in terms of factual conspectus. (III) Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power.” The petitioner namely Sandeep connection with FIR No.129 dated 11.09.2020, registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur, for the alleged possession of 50 grams of Diacetylmorphine. The case was registered under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, the charge before the concerned trial Court on 05.02.2 on 08.04.2021. The examination-in-chief of PW 3 ASI Kulwinder Singh was conducted on 06.09.2021 and that of PW ASI Ajay Kumar on 15.11.2021. All the three witnesses were duly cross examined by the counsel for the petitioner on 25.04.2022 where prosecution evidence was closed. While the trial was underway, accused Ashok Kumar @ Shoka i.e. husband of the petitioner, a proclaimed offender on 14.01.2025. During the course of trial proceedings, an application under Section 311 of the Code was filed on behalf of the recalling of the aforesaid witnesses 4 A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition. Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection. No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive guide in terms of factual conspectus. Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power.” petitioner namely Sandeep Kaur @ Sheepa was arrested in connection with FIR No.129 dated 11.09.2020, registered at Police Station l, District Hoshiarpur, for the alleged possession of 50 grams of Diacetylmorphine. The case was registered under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the concerned trial Court on 05.02.2021 and the charges were framed chief of PW-1 ASI Jarnail Singh and 3 ASI Kulwinder Singh was conducted on 06.09.2021 and that of PW ASI Ajay Kumar on 15.11.2021. All the three witnesses were duly cross he counsel for the petitioner on 25.04.2022 whereinafter While the trial was underway, the husband of the petitioner, was declared During the course of trial proceedings, an application under Section 311 of the Code was filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused recalling of the aforesaid witnesses who were examined over 03 A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. ay down any such exhaustive guide- Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our was arrested in connection with FIR No.129 dated 11.09.2020, registered at Police Station l, District Hoshiarpur, for the alleged possession of 50 grams of Diacetylmorphine. The case was registered under Sections 21/61/85 of the sheet was filed charges were framed 1 ASI Jarnail Singh and 3 ASI Kulwinder Singh was conducted on 06.09.2021 and that of PW-5 ASI Ajay Kumar on 15.11.2021. All the three witnesses were duly cross- after the co- was declared During the course of trial proceedings, an application under accused AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.02 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- years ago on the ground that the petitioner was arres during the COVID were examined on 06.09.2021 and 15.11.2021 respectively and their cross examination was conducted on 25.04.2022. However, a stand was taken the application in pandemic and an informal understanding that the matter would be resolved by imposing fine and sentence for the period already undergone, the effective cross granted to the defence for conducting meaningful and effective cross examination of the said witnesses, in the interest of justice. of notice, 7. the NDPS Act were framed on 25.02.2021. The aforesaid witnesses were duly examined in the year 2021 defence evidence an accused Ashok Kumar absented from the proceedings and was declared a proclaimed offender on 14.01.2025. The instant application has been filed at a belated stage, seeking recall examined more than 03 years ago. Although Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the absence of any cogent justification. was ineffective due to the prevailing pandemic circumstances and an alleged informal understanding that the matter would be concluded on the basis of -37911-2025 years ago on the ground that the petitioner was arres during the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, the aforesaid witnesses were examined on 06.09.2021 and 15.11.2021 respectively and their cross examination was conducted on 25.04.2022. However, a stand was taken the application in hand that due to prevailing uncertainties during the pandemic and an informal understanding that the matter would be resolved by imposing fine and sentence for the period already undergone, the effective cross-examination was not carried out granted to the defence for conducting meaningful and effective cross examination of the said witnesses, in the interest of justice. of notice, the State opposed the application A perusal of the impugned order reveals tha the NDPS Act were framed on 25.02.2021. The aforesaid witnesses were duly examined-in-chief and cross-examined by the learned defence counsel in the year 2021-22. Subsequently, the matter was fixed for recording of defence evidence and final arguments. However, during this stage, co accused Ashok Kumar absented from the proceedings and was declared a proclaimed offender on 14.01.2025. The instant application has been filed at a belated stage, seeking recalling of the aforesaid witnes examined more than 03 years ago. Although Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the absence of any cogent justification. The plea of the petitioner that the cross was ineffective due to the prevailing pandemic circumstances and an alleged informal understanding that the matter would be concluded on the basis of 5 years ago on the ground that the petitioner was arrested on 11.09.202 19 pandemic. During this period, the aforesaid witnesses were examined on 06.09.2021 and 15.11.2021 respectively and their cross examination was conducted on 25.04.2022. However, a stand was taken that due to prevailing uncertainties during the pandemic and an informal understanding that the matter would be resolved by imposing fine and sentence for the period already undergone, the examination was not carried out and hence an opportunity be granted to the defence for conducting meaningful and effective cross examination of the said witnesses, in the interest of justice. Upon issuance opposed the application. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the charges under the NDPS Act were framed on 25.02.2021. The aforesaid witnesses were examined by the learned defence counsel 22. Subsequently, the matter was fixed for recording of d final arguments. However, during this stage, co accused Ashok Kumar absented from the proceedings and was declared a proclaimed offender on 14.01.2025. The instant application has been filed at of the aforesaid witnesses who were examined more than 03 years ago. Although, the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the absence of any The plea of the petitioner that the cross-examination was ineffective due to the prevailing pandemic circumstances and an alleged informal understanding that the matter would be concluded on the basis of ted on 11.09.2020 19 pandemic. During this period, the aforesaid witnesses were examined on 06.09.2021 and 15.11.2021 respectively and their cross- examination was conducted on 25.04.2022. However, a stand was taken in that due to prevailing uncertainties during the pandemic and an informal understanding that the matter would be resolved by imposing fine and sentence for the period already undergone, the pportunity be granted to the defence for conducting meaningful and effective cross- Upon issuance t the charges under the NDPS Act were framed on 25.02.2021. The aforesaid witnesses were examined by the learned defence counsel 22. Subsequently, the matter was fixed for recording of d final arguments. However, during this stage, co- accused Ashok Kumar absented from the proceedings and was declared a proclaimed offender on 14.01.2025. The instant application has been filed at ses who were the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the absence of any examination was ineffective due to the prevailing pandemic circumstances and an alleged informal understanding that the matter would be concluded on the basis of AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.02 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- fine and sentence already undergone, is wholly unten understanding between the Court and the accused is record and is, in fact, unfathomable in law the same counsel had conducted the cross negates any clai case, the application in hand appears to be an afterthought and lacks fide. 8. the impugned order passed by the Court below. this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in question by 9. (i) Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissal. (ii) shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Court proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. (ii) August 02 Ajay -37911-2025 fine and sentence already undergone, is wholly unten understanding between the Court and the accused is and is, in fact, unfathomable in law the same counsel had conducted the cross negates any claim of procedural disadvantage. In the , the application in hand appears to be an afterthought and lacks For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in question by dismissing the same. In view of the above discussion, it is directed as follows: The impugned order dated 29.05.2025 Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, does not call for any interference dismissal. Ordered accordingly. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Court proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 2, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 6 fine and sentence already undergone, is wholly untenable. Any such understanding between the Court and the accused is not borne out from the and is, in fact, unfathomable in law. Furthermore, the very fact that the same counsel had conducted the cross-examination of these witnesses m of procedural disadvantage. In the factual milieu of the , the application in hand appears to be an afterthought and lacks bona this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in In view of the above discussion, it is directed as follows: 29.05.2025 passed by the Additional , does not call for any interference and deserves Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Court below shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Any such borne out from the . Furthermore, the very fact that examination of these witnesses factual milieu of the bona this Court does not find any error in In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in Additional and deserves Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.02 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document