IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 143 CRM-M-40169-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 LAL CHAND BANSAL ....Petitioner V/s STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .…Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate and Mr. Mohit Giri, Advocate for the petitioner. *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) The instant petition, preferred under Section 528 of BNSS, assailing the order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-6) vide which the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 348 of BNSS (Section 311 Cr.P.C.), seeking re-examination of the complainant Baldev Raj Verma who had initially appeared as PW-1. 2. The facts, as emanating from the petition, are that FIR No.5 dated 30.01.2023 was registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali on the statement of one Baldev Raj Verma with the following allegations:- “Statement of Sh. Baldev Raj Verma, Municipal Engineer, Municipal Council, district Patiala, son of Sh. Tara Chand, resident of H.No.85, Phase-7, S.A.S. Nagar, Mob. No.9872222989, stated that I am resident of the above said address and I am posted as Municipal Engineer in Municipal council, Patiala. Prior to this, I was posted as Assistant Municipal Engineer at Nagar council Kharar. Sh. Lal Chand Bansal son of late Sh. Hukam Chand, resident of H.No.2705, Ward No.16, Guga Mari Colony, Kharar, District SAS Nagar MANI KUMAR 2026.07.24 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40169-2026 (O&M) -2- had submitted complaint in the year 2015 to Vigilance Bureau, Punjab for acquiring property more than known source of income. The inquiry was conducted by Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-1 Mohali. Since the allegations levelled against me were not proved, the complaint was filed. (Copy of letter enclosed). Thereafter, he again, on the basis of same allegations, submitted another complaint in the year 2017, after conducting inquiry, the same was also filed. (copy of letter enclosed). Mr. Lal Chand is a black mailer person and in the garb of Bansal Auto and does cheating. Against this person, earlier FIR No.153 dated 05.09.2012 U/S 406, 420, 120-B IPC and FIR No.228 dated 22.11.2015 U/S 384, 506, 511, 120-IPC Police Station Kharar for cheating stood registered. Beside above, a resolution No.96 dated 15.03.2016 as unanimously passed by all the Councillors in the meeting of the House of Municipal Committee (copy enclosed). This person by making telephone calls threatened me of one complaint being pending with Vigilance Bureau and for withdrawing the said complaint he is blackmailing me and is demanding Rs.2 crores from me. This person is asking for giving Rs.50 lacs in cash and remaining 1½ crores he is asking for giving him property in lieu thereof. In this regard, I have recorded all the conversation. I do not want to give this amount and for this reason I have made false promise to give him Rs.5 lacs in cash. I do not want to give him forced recovery in lieu of false complaints by blackmailing me, it is therefore, requested the legal action against the above said Lal Chand Bansal be taken. The recording of demand for money made by him has been made. The recording of Lal Chand done by me in pen drive is being submitted to you. I submit currency notes worth Rs.5,00,000/-. Statement has been got recorded, has been read over, heard and admit it to be correct. Sd/- Baldev Raj Verma Dated 30.01.2023.” 3. During the course of the trial, the said complainant Baldev Raj Verma appeared as PW-1. As the trial proceeded further, the Investigating MANI KUMAR 2026.07.24 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40169-2026 (O&M) -3- Officer PW12-Ajay Kumar appeared in the witness box. 4. An application (Annexure P-5) was moved under Section 348 of BNSS (Section 311 Cr.P.C.) seeking re-examination of the said witness on the ground that during the cross-examination of the said witness, certain facts had surfaced which were required to be specifically put to the complainant Baldev Raj Verma so that he could clarify and further depose with regard to the same. The said application has been dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-6), leading to the filing of the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that in the cross-examination of the complainant, it had duly been stated by him that he could produce the source of Rs. 5 lakhs which had been used during the trap laid against the accused and as per his knowledge, Rs.3 lakhs had been withdrawn by him from his bank account and Rs.2 lakhs were given from cash savings that he had. Subsequently, when the Investigating Officer stepped into the witness box as PW12, in his cross-examination, he stated that he had not verified the source of funds of the complainant regarding the trap money. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this fact needs to be got clarified from the complainant by summoning him under Section 311 Cr.P.C. He further submits that though the application was moved without any delay after the examination of PW12-Ajay Kumar, the trial Court erroneously held that the filing of the application was delayed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and find the same to be devoid of merit. 9. No doubt, the observation of the trial Court and the application was delayed is erroneous insofar as the time period is concerned because the same was moved almost immediately after the examination of PW12-Ajay MANI KUMAR 2026.07.24 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40169-2026 (O&M) -4- Kumar. However, what the trial Court probably meant was the stage of the trial, when the application was moved. Be that as it may, recalling of a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C would be called for, if it is essential for the just decision of the case and without which there would be some injustice caused to the accused. The application was though vague, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has given the reason for which the application had been moved. The said reason is also not found to be sufficient because it is for the prosecution to prove its own case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and for clarifying certain facts, re- summoning of a witness would not be required and in any case that is not the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. 10. That being so, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. However, nothing stated herein above shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE July 23, 2026 Mani Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MANI KUMAR 2026.07.24 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document