The High Court of Jharkhand has affirmed that trial courts possess the authority to reopen prosecution evidence in criminal cases under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provided such reopening is necessary for a just decision. This ruling clarifies that procedural rigidity cannot override substantive justice in criminal trials, particularly in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s application to quash the trial court’s order reopening prosecution evidence was dismissed. The High Court held that the trial court acted lawfully in recalling its earlier order closing evidence, as the additional witnesses were essential for a just decision. No illegality or abuse of process was found. The court emphasized that procedural flexibility under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, permits reopening evidence when required for fairness, even in cheque dishonour cases.
Background & Facts
The petitioner was accused in Complaint Case No. 1354 of 2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 16 March 2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate closed the prosecution’s evidence without examining all witnesses. Subsequently, the complainant filed a petition on 18 May 2024 seeking recall of that order to examine additional witnesses whose testimony was deemed necessary to establish the case. On 9 May 2025, the trial court allowed the petition, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that once evidence is closed in a criminal trial, it cannot be reopened except under very limited circumstances.
The complainant did not appear before the High Court despite notice, leaving the State and the petitioner as the only parties arguing the matter. The petitioner relied on civil procedure jurisprudence, particularly the Supreme Court’s decision in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, to argue that reopening evidence is impermissible absent statutory provision. The State countered that criminal procedure permits such reopening where justice demands it.
The Legal Issue
Can a criminal trial court, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, recall its order closing prosecution evidence to allow examination of additional witnesses, even in the absence of an explicit statutory provision for reopening?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that criminal procedure is strictly codified and that once evidence is closed, it cannot be reopened unless expressly permitted by law. He relied on the Supreme Court’s observation in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, which held that in civil cases, inherent powers under Section 151 CPC may be invoked only for clarification, not for supplementing evidence. He argued that since the BNSS, 2023, does not contain a provision analogous to Section 311 CrPC allowing recall of witnesses after evidence closure, the trial court’s action was ultra vires and violated the petitioner’s right to a fair trial.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the BNSS, 2023, empowers trial courts to ensure justice is done. He emphasized that Section 528 grants inherent powers to correct errors or prevent abuse of process, and that the trial court’s decision was based on the necessity of the witnesses’ testimony for a just outcome. He cited the principle that procedural rules must yield to substantive justice, particularly in cases where the complainant’s case is incomplete due to oversight or legitimate necessity.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court rejected the petitioner’s attempt to import civil procedure norms into a criminal context. It observed that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is a comprehensive criminal code designed to ensure fair and efficient trials, not to impose rigid formalism. The court noted that Section 528 explicitly empowers the High Court to quash orders that are illegal, perverse, or contrary to law, but not to interfere with discretionary decisions that serve the ends of justice.
"The undisputed fact remains that the evidence of the witnesses sought to be examined by the complainant, is required for the just decision of the case."
The court held that the trial court’s decision to allow the reopening was neither arbitrary nor illegal. It distinguished the Velusamy case, which dealt with civil litigation and inherent powers under CPC, from the present criminal proceeding governed by BNSS, 2023. The court emphasized that criminal courts have a duty to ensure that no material evidence is excluded if it bears on the truth of the allegations. The reopening was not an attempt to fill evidentiary gaps after a weak case was presented, but to complete a necessary part of the prosecution’s case that was inadvertently omitted.
The court further noted that the complainant had paid a cost of Rs. 2,000, which acted as a deterrent against frivolous applications. This financial consequence, coupled with the trial court’s careful consideration, reinforced the legitimacy of the order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment provides clear guidance to trial courts and practitioners: reopening of prosecution evidence is permissible under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, if the additional testimony is essential for a just and complete adjudication. Practitioners must now recognize that procedural finality is not absolute in criminal trials. Applications to reopen evidence must be supported by a clear explanation of necessity, and courts are expected to weigh the impact on the accused’s right to a fair trial against the need for truth-seeking.
This ruling limits the scope of challenges under Section 528 to cases involving manifest illegality or mala fide intent. Merely disagreeing with the trial court’s discretion is insufficient. Future applications to quash such orders will likely fail unless the reopening is shown to be arbitrary, prejudicial, or motivated by delay. The judgment also reinforces that Section 311 BNSS (analogous to Section 311 CrPC) remains the primary mechanism for calling witnesses, but its absence at the time of evidence closure does not preclude corrective action under Section 528 when justice demands it.
The decision aligns with the broader trend in Indian jurisprudence favoring substantive justice over technical compliance, particularly in cases involving financial fraud and cheque dishonour where the complainant’s burden is often fact-intensive.
