1 CGHC010297152026 2026:CGHC:39528 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2016 of 2026 Ali Ahmed Alias Raju S/o Mohd. Sakir Siddiqui Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Noorani Masjid, Mominpura, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus Mohd. Sharif S/o Late Mohd. Abdul Qadri Aged About 70 Years R/o In Front Of Ursuline School, Nawapara, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tehsil Gandhinagar, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. Shakuntala Ratre, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09 . 09 .202 6 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS assailing order dated 03.06.2026, passed by the learned 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Criminal Revision No.88/2025, by which, his revision, assailing order dated 08.10.2025, passed by the leaned JMFC, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG), in Complaint Case No.3772/2022, rejecting his application under Section 311 of CrPC/348 of BNSS, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint case was filed by the SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 complainant/respondent alleging that Cheque No.749714 dated 03.10.2022 for an amount of Rs.5,56,000/- was given to him by the accused/petitioner towards his liability and the said cheque was dishonored when presented in the bank. Therefore, the complainant was compelled to firstly issue notice to the accused and thereafter file complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the trial Court. The learned trial Court taking cognizance of the matter, issue summons to the accused and, after recording evidence of the accused, examined the complainant on 03.12.2024. Subsequently, the accused moved an application under Section 348 of BNSS for further examination of the complainant, as he has 13 questions which could not be raised by the counsel who was contesting the case. Thus, he prayed for allowing the application. 3. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court on 08.10.2025 by recording a finding that the learned counsel for the accused has extensively examined the witnesses and after due opportunity he has completed the evidence and there is no justifiable reason for extending another opportunity for examining the complainant/witnesses. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred criminal revision under Section 440 of the BNSS, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 03.06.2026. Assailing, the aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the submission made before the trial Court would submit that in absence of re-examination of the complainant/witnesses, his right to defence is adversely affected 3 which is against the paramount consideration under the criminal law justice system that the accused should be given all the opportunity to defend his case properly. He would further submit that the learned trial Court as well as the Revisional Court without considering these aspects of the matter mechanically rejected the application and would pray for allowing the CRMP. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and further considering the law on the point that under the garb of Section 348 of the BNSS/Section 311 of the CrPC the petitioner cannot be given another opportunity to re-examine the witnesses and to fill-up the lacuna as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Madhab Chandra Pradhan & Ors. Vs. State of Odisha passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10082 of 2024 and in case of The State of Tripura Vs. Panna Ahmed reported in 2026 INSC 584, in which, in paragraphs 16 & 17 it has been held as under: "16. Secondly, the principal ground urged in support of the application under Section 311 CrPC is that certain facts arising from the CDRs of the relevant mobile numbers could not be brought on record during the earlier cross- examination due to inadvertence. However, it is an admitted position that the said CDRs were filed by the prosecution itself along with the charge-sheet and formed part of the record throughout the course of the trial. The defence was thus aware of the said material and had adequate opportunity to examine the prosecutrix with reference thereto. The power under Section 311 CrPC cannot be exercised merely to fill up lacunae in the defence case. 17. Lastly, it is important to mention that the prosecutrix has already been subjected to the ordeal of deposition and cross-examination on four separate occasions before the Trial Court, in addition to having her statement recorded 4 during investigation and before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. Directing recall would inflict further and unjustifiable hardship upon the prosecutrix. The witnesses cannot be expected to face hardship of appearing in court repeatedly, particularly in sensitive cases. It can result in undue hardship for the victims, especially so, of heinous crimes, if they are required to repeatedly appear in Court to face cross-examination." 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case that proper opportunity has been afforded, wherein the accused has put all the questions before the complainant, which is reasonably necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case and also taking into consideration the well settled law on the point that by virtue of Section 348 of the BNSS/Section 311 of the CrPC no lacuna can be filled by the accused by re-examination of the complainant/witness, I am of the view that no material irregularity has been committed either by the trial Court or by the Revisional Court in rejecting the application of the accused which warrants interference of this Court in exercise of power under Section 528 of the BNSS. However, it is directed that since the trial is pending in this case for last 04 years, the trial Court shall make endeavour and conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge s@if