The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that courts must not be prevented from considering evidence necessary to arrive at the truth and render a just decision. Justice Manisha Batra held that the power to permit additional evidence during trial cannot be curtailed by adopting a hyper-technical approach.
Section 348 BNSS Empowers Courts
Justice Batra observed that Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) enables courts to arrive at the truth and render a just decision. The provision empowers courts to permit additional oral or documentary evidence whenever considered necessary for just adjudication.
“The intention of the Legislature is to empower and enable the court to come to a correct finding… The cause of justice is paramount and no impediment has been intentionally put on the Court by the Legislature to exercise the powers under this provision,” the court observed.
Background of the Case
The ruling came while upholding a Ludhiana Judicial Magistrate First Class order allowing a complainant in a cheque dishonour case to examine his firm’s accountant and produce additional business records, including invoices, ledger account, GST registration certificate, GST returns, balance sheet, and audit report.
The complainant had filed proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the petitioner issued a cheque dated October 12, 2022, for Rs 10 lakh, which was dishonoured on November 11, 2022, with the remark “account closed.” A legal notice was served on December 7, 2022, but the petitioner failed to make payment, leading to the complaint.
Trial Court Proceedings
During trial, the complainant was cross-examined on April 29 and August 28, 2025. He admitted that invoices, bills, GST registration certificate, GST returns, ledger account, balance sheet, and books of account were in his possession before filing the complaint but had not been produced. He also admitted that, except for the exhibited account statement, no document had been placed on record to establish the alleged outstanding liability.
The complainant then moved an application to examine the accountant and produce additional documents. The petitioner opposed it, arguing it was an attempt to fill lacunae after the defence was disclosed during cross-examination.
The trial court allowed the application on April 6, 2026, holding the proposed evidence necessary for a just decision and that the accused would have an opportunity to cross-examine the additional witness. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court.
High Court’s Reasoning
Appearing for the respondent-complainant, advocate Viren Sibal, along with counsel Tisha Kalra, argued that the accountant was already cited in the list of witnesses at the time of complaint institution. His examination and the business records were necessary for just adjudication of the commercial transaction dispute.
Justice Batra observed that Section 348 BNSS confers wide powers to summon witnesses or permit additional evidence whenever necessary for a just decision. Referring to Supreme Court decisions, the Bench reiterated that the purpose is to enable the court to arrive at the truth and prevent failure of justice even if material evidence was not produced earlier.
“Merely because certain documents were not produced at an earlier stage would not preclude the Court from permitting their production if the Court is satisfied that such evidence is essential for a just decision of the case. The power under Section 348 of BNSS is meant to advance the cause of justice and cannot be curtailed by adopting a hyper-technical approach,” the court observed.
No Prejudice to Petitioner
The Bench held that the petitioner could not claim prejudice as he would have full opportunity to cross-examine the additional witness and rebut the documents. “Unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice, no interference is warranted. In the present case, the learned trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while allowing the application and has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with settled principles of law,” Justice Batra asserted.
The court dismissed the petition, clarifying that nothing in the order should be construed as an expression on the merits of the cheque dishonour complaint, which will be decided independently by the trial court based on evidence adduced by the parties.
