2026:HHC:30074 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No.757 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.7.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Rohit Parmar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short the “BNSS”), challenge has been laid to order dated 06.07.2026 passed by learned Special Judge-I, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. NDPS/37/2021, whereby application having been preferred by the petitioner-accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 348 of BNSS, 2023), praying therein to summon and examine Constable Kuldeep No. 04, driver of official vehicle bearing registration No. HP-18A-7686, came to be dismissed. 2026:HHC:30074 2 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material available on record by the respective parties are that the petitioner-accused is facing trial for his having committed offences punishable under the NDPS Act. During the pendency of the trial, accused- petitioner preferred an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., averring therein that during cross-examination of PW-12 i.e. Investigating Officer, it has transpired that the abstract of log book of the official vehicle contained an entry regarding receipt of secret information on the relevant day, whereas the Investigating Officer reported that he had not received any secret information. Petitioner-accused further averred in the application that testimony of the driver, who at the relevant time, was driving official vehicle bearing No. HP-18A-7686 is essential to bring the true facts before the Court. Petitioner-accused further pleaded in the application that though Investigating Officer admitted the existence of such an entry in the log book abstract, the same could not be exhibited as Constable Kuldeep was not cited as a prosecution witness, which is stated to be an inadvertent omission. It also came to be submitted that defence has consistently raised plea during cross-examination that mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act were not complied with, as such, application cannot be stated to have been filed to fill up any loophole or delay the proceedings, but rather to enable this Court to arrive at a just decision. 2026:HHC:30074 3 3. Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused came to be resisted at the behest of the prosecution, which by way of filing reply, contended that log book is filled by driver after completion of the journey, whereas departure report is recorded before the commencement of the journey. The departure entry (Rapat No. 37 dated 7.5.2021) specifically records that police party had left the police station for patrolling and detection of clues regarding Narcotics and Excise cases. Prosecution averred in the application that entry in the abstract of the log book merely reflects the purpose for which the official vehicle was utilized and certainly does not indicate that any secret information was received prior to departure or that police had left for investigation on the basis of secret information. While stating that the petitioner-accused has misconstrued the log book, it is averred in the application that there is no necessity to examine Constable Kuldeep No.04, who was not cited as a prosecution witness. It is also pleaded that all mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act were duly complied with during the investigation and present application has been filed solely with a view to delay the proceedings. 4. Having taken note of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned court below dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 06.07.2026. In the aforesaid background, petitioner- 2026:HHC:30074 4 accused has approached this Court in the present proceedings praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Arsh Rattan, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that learned Court below, while passing the impugned order, failed to take note of the merits in the case of the petitioner and proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground of delay in filing the application. He submitted that since petitioner-accused was able to prove on record that recalling of witness, Constable Kuldeep, is just and essential for the decision of the case, there was no occasion, whatsoever, for the Court below to dismiss the application, rather, with a view to bring the true facts, it ought to have summoned Constable Kuldeep as a witness. 7. By now, it is well settled that Court enjoys vast power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any witness, provided the same is essentially required for just decision of the case, but such extraordinary power can be exercised at any stage of inquiry, trial or proceedings of the Court, but with utmost caution and sparingly. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that discovery, 2026:HHC:30074 5 vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes of underlying object of Courts of justice. It is also well settled that wider the power, greater the responsibility upon the Court which exercises such power. Section 311, if read in its entirety, clearly reveals that it comprises of two parts; first part reserves the right to the parties to move an application for examination/ re-examination of a witness at any stage, whereas the second part is mandatory that casts a duty upon the Court to examine, re-examine or recall or summon a witness at any stage, if his/her evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case because definitely the underlying object of aforesaid provision of law is to ensure that there is no failure of justice on account of mistake on the part of either of the parties in bringing valuable piece of evidence or leaving ambiguity in the statements of witnesses examined from either side. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and another vs. State of Gujarat and others (2006) 3 SCC 374, wherein, Hon’ble Apex Court, held as under:- "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 for the prosecution and not that of the 2026:HHC:30074 6 accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers 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 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. 28. As indicated above, the Section is wholly discretionary. The second part of it imposes upon the Magistrate an obligation: it is, that the Court shall summon and examine all persons whose evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. It is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the Court. Section 60, 64 and 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, ‘Evidence Act’) are based on this rule. The Court is not empowered under the provisions of the Code to compel either the prosecution or the defence to examine any particular witness or witnesses on their side. This must be left to the parties. But in weighing the evidence, the Court can take note of the fact that the best available evidence has not been given, and can draw an adverse inference. The Court will often have to depend on intercepted allegations made by the parties, or on inconclusive, inference from facts elicited in the evidence. In such cases, the Court has to act under the second part of the section. Sometimes the examination of witnesses as directed by the Court may result in what is thought to be "filling of loopholes". That is purely a subsidiary factor and cannot be taken into account. Whether the new evidence is essential or not must of course depend on the facts of each case, and has to be determined by the Presiding Judge. 29. The object of the Section 311 is to bring on record evidence not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of the orderly society. If a witness called by Court gives evidence against the complainant he should be allowed an opportunity to cross- examine. The right to cross-examine a witness who is called by a 2026:HHC:30074 7 Court arises not under the provision of Section 311, but under the Evidence Actt which gives a party the right to cross- examine a witness who is not his own witness. Since a witness summoned by the Court could not be termed a witness of any particular party, the Court should give the right of crossexamination to the complainant. These aspects were highlighted in Jamat Raj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1968 SC 178). 30. Right from the inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying existence of Courts of justice. The operative principles for a fair trial permeate the common law in both civil and criminal contexts. Application of these principles involves a delicate judicial balancing of competing interests in a criminal trial, the interests of the accused and the public and to a great extent that of the victim have to be weighed not losing sight of the public interest involved in the prosecution of persons who commit offences. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and another (2013) 14 SCC 461, has held that power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon any person or witness or examine any person already examined can be exercised at any stage provided the same is required for just decision of the case. It may be profitable to take note of the following paras of the judgment:- "14. A conspicuous reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. would show that widest of the powers have been invested with the Courts when it comes to the question of summoning a witness or to recall or reexamine any witness already examined. A reading of the provision shows that the expression "any" has been used as a pre-fix to "court", "inquiry", "trial", "other proceeding", "person as a witness", "person in attendance though not summoned as a witness", and "person already examined". By using the said expression "any" as a pre-fix to the various expressions mentioned above, it is ultimately stated that all that was required to be satisfied by the Court 2026:HHC:30074 8 was only in relation to such evidence that appears to the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. Section 138 of the Evidence Act, prescribed the order of examination of a witness in the Court. Order of re- examination is also prescribed calling for such a witness so desired for such re-examination. Therefore, a reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 138 Evidence Act, insofar as it comes to the question of a criminal trial, the order of re-examination at the desire of any person under Secton 138, will have to necessarily be in consonance with the prescription contained in Secton 311 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, imperative that the invocation of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and its application in a particular case can be ordered by the Court, only by bearing in mind the object and purport of the said provision, namely, for achieving a just decision of the case as noted by us earlier. The power vested under the said provision is made available to any Court at any stage in any inquiry or trial or other proceeding initiated under the Code for the purpose of summoning any person as a witness or for examining any person in attendance, even though not summoned as witness or to recall or reexamine any person already examined. Insofar as recalling and re- examination of any person already examined, the Court must necessarily consider and ensure that such recall and re-examination of any person, appears in the view of the Court to be essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore, the paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose the essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained. To put it differently, while such a widest power is invested with the Court, it is needless to state that exercise of such power should be made judicially and also with extreme care and caution. 15. In this context, we also wish to make a reference to certain decisions rendered by this Court on the interpretation of Section 311 Cr.P.C. where, this Court highlighted as to the basic principles which are to be borne in mind, while dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 15.1 In the decision reported in Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 1968 SC 178, this Court held as under in paragraph 14:- "14. It would appear that in our criminal jurisdiction, statutory law confers a power in absolute terms to be exercised at any stage of the trial to 2026:HHC:30074 9 summon a witness or examine one present in court or to recall a witness already examined, and makes this the duty and obligation of the Court provided the just 9 decision of the case demands it. In other words, where the court exercises the power under the second part, the inquiry cannot be whether the accused has brought anything suddenly or unexpectedly but whether the court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it for a just decision of the case. If the court has acted without the requirements of a just decision, the action is open to criticism but if the court's action is supportable as being in aid of a just decision the action cannot be regarded as exceeding the jurisdiction." (Emphasis added) 15.2 In the decision reported in Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India and another - 1991 Suppl.(1) SCC 271, this Court again highlighted the importance of the power to be exercised under Section 311Cr.P.C. as under in paragraph 10:- "10....In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 540 of the Code (Section 311 of the new Code) are enacted where under any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re- examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall and reexamine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute; because if judgments happen to be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive and speculative presentation of facts, the ends of justice would be defeated." 15.3 In the decision in Raj Deo Sharma (II) vs. State of Bihar - 1999 (7) SCC 604, the proposition has been reiterated as under in paragraph 9:- "9. We may observe that the power of the court as envisaged in Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been curtailed by this Court. Neither in the decision of the five-Judge Bench in A.R. Antulay case nor in Kartar Singh case such power has been restricted for achieving speedy trial. In other words, even if the prosecution evidence is closed in compliance with the directions contained in the main judgment it is still open to the prosecution to invoke the powers of the court under Section 311 of the 2026:HHC:30074 10 Code. We make it clear that if evidence of any witness appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case it is the duty of the court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person." (Emphasis added) 15.4. In U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Anr. Vs Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan - 2006 (7) SCC 529, the decision has been further elucidated as under in paragraph 15:- "15. A conspectus of authorities referred to above would show that the principle is well settled that the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.PC should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof of such facts which lead to a just and correct decision of the case, this being the primary duty of a criminal court. Calling a witness or re-examining a witness already examined for the purpose of finding out the truth in order to enable the court to arrive at a just decision of the case cannot be dubbed as "filling in a lacuna in the 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." (Emphasis supplied). 15.5 In Iddar & Or. vs. Aabida & Anr. - AIR 2007 SC 3029, the object underlying under Section 311 Cr.P.C., has been stated as under in paragraph 9:- "9...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 for 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 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 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 2026:HHC:30074 11 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." (Emphasis added) 15.6 In P.Sanjeeva Ra vs Sate of A.P.- AIR 2012 SC 2242, the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been highlighted by making reference to an earlier decision of this Court and also with particular reference to the case, which was dealt with in that decision in paragraphs 20 and 23, which are as under:- "20. Grant of fairest opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence was the object of every fair trial, observed this Court in Hoffman Andreas vs. Inspector of Cutoms, Amristsar (2000) 10 SCC 430. The following passage is in this regard apposite: "6. ...In such circumstances, if the new counsel thought to have the material witnesses further examined, the Court could adopt latitude and a liberal view in the interest of justice, particularly when the court has unbridled powers in the matter as enshrined in Section 311 of the Code. After all the trial is basically for the prisoners and courts should afford the opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible." 23. We are conscious of the fact that recall of the witnesses is being directed nearly four years after they were examined-in-chief about an incident that is nearly seven years old. Delay takes a heavy toll on the human memory apart from breeding cynicism about the efficacy of the judicial system to decide cases within a reasonably foreseeable time period. To that extent the apprehension expressed by Mr. Rawal, that the prosecution may suffer prejudice on account of a belated recall, may not be wholly without any basis. Having said that, we are of the opinion that on a parity of reasoning and looking to the consequences of denial of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, we would prefer to err in favour of the appellant getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against a possible prejudice at his cost. Fairness of the trial is a virtue that is sacrosanct in our judicial system and no price is too heavy to protect that virtue. A possible prejudice to prosecution is not even a price, leave alone one that would justify denial of a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself." (Emphasis in original) 15.7 In a recent decision of this Court in 2026:HHC:30074 12 Sheikh Jumman vs. State of Maharashtra - (2012) 9 SCALE 18, the above referred to decisions were followed. 6. Again in an unreported decision rendered by this Court dated 08.05.2013 in Natasha Singh vs. CBI (State)-Criminal Appeal No.709 of 2013, where one of us was a party, various other decisions of this Court were referred to and the position has been stated as under in paragraphs 15 and 16: "15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal, however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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 great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as 'any Court', 'at any stage', or 'or any enquiry', trial or other proceedings', 'any person' and 'any such person' clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should, therefore, be whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case. 16. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the 2026:HHC:30074 13 society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right. Thus, under no circumstances can a person's right to fair trial be jeopardized. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of such right would amount to the denial of a fair trial. Thus, it is essential that the rules of procedure that have been designed to ensure justice are scrupulously followed, and the court must be zealous in ensuring that there is no breach of the same. (Vide Talab Haji Hussain vs. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar & Anr., AIR 1958 SC 376; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr. V State of Gujarat & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 3114; Zahira Babibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarar & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1367; Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) v. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.) (2007) 2 SCC 258; Vijay Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2011) 8 SCC 136; and Sudevanand v. State through C.B.I. (2012) 3 SCC 387.)" 17. From a conspectus consideration of the above decisions, while dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive and speculative presentation 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 reexamine any such person. d) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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 2026:HHC:30074 14 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 Cr.P.C. 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 Court should 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 Cr.P.C. 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 2026:HHC:30074 15 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." 9. At this stage, this Court deems it proper to place reliance upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mannan SK and others vs. State of West Bengal and another AIR 2014 SC 2950, wherein the Hon'ble Court has 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 Codewhich 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. The 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 untrammeled 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." 2026:HHC:30074 16 10. Aforesaid exposition of law clearly suggests that a fair trial is main object of criminal jurisprudence and it is duty of court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. It has been further held in the aforesaid judgments that fair trial entails interests of accused, victim and society and therefore, grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held in the aforesaid judgment that adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right and denial of such right would amount to denial of a fair trial. 11. Though in the instant case, it is not in dispute that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. came to be filed by the petitioner, praying therein to summon and examine Constable Kuldeep No. 04, driver of official vehicle in question, after closure of defence evidence, however having taken note of aforesaid position of law, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the finding recorded by the learned Court below that on account of delay in filing application, prayer made in the same cannot be accepted, rather, the very purpose and object of provision under Section 311 is to ensure that parties are permitted to bring on record certain facts which they failed to bring on record at an earlier occasion for reasons beyond their control or on account of inadvertent omissions at the behest of counsel representing 2026:HHC:30074 17 them and which are essential for just decision of the case at any stage of trial, even after closure of defence evidence. 12. Admittedly, in the case at hand, PW-12, during his cross- examination, admitted abstract of log book of the official vehicle which contained an entry regarding receipt of secret information, whereas PW-12 deposed that he had not received any secret information, rather, an attempt has been made to prove that departure report was recorded before the commencement of the journey. It is also attempted to be proved at the behest of the aforesaid witness that mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act were duly complied with during investigation, whereas petitioner-accused intends to prove that provisions of aforesaid provision of law were not complied with and with a view to prove such submission of his, he intends to examine Constable Kuldeep No. 04, who at the time of alleged recovery of contraband was driver of official vehicle No. HP-18A- 7686 in which Investigating Officer along with other police officials had gone to the spot. Though Shri Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, vehemently argued that no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the aforesaid person because in the abstract of log book, only entry with regard to departure record that too with regard to commencement of journey, can be found, but this Court is of the view that no prejudice, if any otherwise, shall be caused to prosecution in case 2026:HHC:30074 18 petitioner-accused is permitted to prove on record that log book of official vehicle contained an entry regarding receipt of secret information, because by doing so, certainly he will be able to prove non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act, which may be crucial for petitioner-accused. Though it came to be vehemently argued at the behest of prosecution that an attempt is being made by petitioner-accused to misconstrue the log book entry, but till the time such log book entry is not made available to Court, which can only be exhibited or proved through Constable Kuldeep No. 04, who at the relevant time was driving the vehicle, no conclusion can be drawn by the Court concerned. Since aforesaid document in the shape of log book of official vehicle may be crucial/essential for just decision of the case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused deserves to be allowed. Moreover, this Court finds that no prejudice of any kind shall be caused to the prosecution on account of summoning of aforesaid witness, namely Constable Kuldeep, because it will also get an opportunity to cross-examine him. To the contrary, if aforesaid witness as is being sought to be examined is not examined and document otherwise intended to be produced on record is not produced, great prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner- accused, who would be deprived of an opportunity of proving his innocence. 13. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the 2026:HHC:30074 19 present petition, same is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.07.2026 passed by learned Special Judge-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, is set aside and application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed, with a direction to learned Court below to summon Constable Kuldeep No. 04, driver of official vehicle, along with relevant documents. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. July 21, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge