Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Suri vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
112
CRR-274-2026
Date of decision: 13.02.2026
DEEPAK SURI ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .......Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Ms. Khushbir Kaur Bhullar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala, whereby his application under Section 348 of BNSS (Section 311 of Cr.P.C) in case FIR No. 128 dated 06.11.2012 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been dismissed.
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR along with Ashok Suri C/o Ashok Rice Mills and Harpal Singh Prop Shri Hargobind Rice Mills. The procurement agencies of the Government of Punjab, i.e. PUNGRAIN, PUNSUP, etc., had purchased paddy of the PAU- 201 variety without bothering about the specification of the said paddy. The 1 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:48 ::: CRR-274-2026 -2- procured paddy was eventually supplied to the rice millers for milling of rice, and no samples were taken even at that stage. The complainant- department thus followed an unscientific methodology not only for the procurement of paddy but also for the allotment and allocation of the same. Eventually, the FIR was got registered on allegation of the shortage of rice and embezzlement thereof.
3. The prosecution led its evidence, and on conclusion thereof, the incriminating material was put to the petitioner herein while recording statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C.
4. The petitioner has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and that he was not guilty of having committed the offence. He sought time to lead the defence evidence. No defence evidence was led by the petitioner herein, whereupon the defence evidence was closed vide order dated 27.10.2025. It was thereafter that the application under Section 348 BNSS was moved by the petitioner for the summoning of witnesses detailed out as under:-
"3. That to prove the case of accused/applicant, the accused/applicant wants to summon the following record through the process of this Hon'ble Court : -
a. The Concerned Clerk from the office of Food Corporation of India, number 39 to 42 Dakshin Marg, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh - 160030 alongwith the following record.
i. Letter dated 08.08.2011 received from Sh. B.S. Joshi, Deputy Commissioner, (S & R) Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi addressed to The Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Punjab regarding uniform specifications 2 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -3- of Paddy, Rice and Coarse Grains for Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12.
ii. DO No. 43-4/2009-QCC/108 dated 20.08.2009 issued by Dr. Joy I. Cheenath the then Joint Secretary Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, for insuring Kharif Marketing Season 2009-10 arrangements.
iii. DO No. 40-18/2011-QCC/1968 dated 30.08.2011 issued by Dr. D Bhalla, the then Joint Secretary Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, for insuring Kharif Marketing Season 2011- 12 arrangements.
iv. No. E.3(1) Kharif/2009-10-899 dated 19.10.2009 issued by Sh. I.K. Negi, Deputy General Manager (QC) Food Corporation of India.
v. No. 192(20)/2011-FC.K/C dated 04.11.2012 Government of India regarding provisional rates of custom milled rice procured under (FAQ) specifications delivered to the central pool during the Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12 in respect of Government of Punjab and its Agencies.
vi. Letter No. 5(10/2009-PY1 dated 22.09.2009 and letter No. 5(10/2009-PY1 dated 23.09.2010 and DO No. RP-2-2010/2832 issued by Sh. Adaish Partap Singh Kairon the then Minister of Food Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Information Technology Minister, Punjab, Chandigarh issued to Union Minister for Agriculture Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi.
3 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -4- vii. Letter DO No. R.P.1A(2085)-09/6502 dated 21.12.2009 Government of Punjab, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Chandigarh send by SP Singh IAS Secretary to Secretary of Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
viii. Memo No. RP-2(285)-2010 dated 15.06.2015 issued by Director to Government of Punjab, Food and Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs, Punjab issued to Secretary of Government of India, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
b. Concerned Clerk from the Office of PUNSUP Patiala alongwith Complete Original record of the committee constituted for lifting of Rice after giving letter number A.Paddy/14/1313439 dated 14.03.2014, Letter number 13163 dated 18.03.2014, Letter number 13314 dated 20.03.2014 alongwith Milling bill of KMS 2011-12 regarding Suri Gram Udyog.
c. Concerned Clerk from the Office of Anaaj Bhawan Sector 39-C Chandigarh-160036 alongwith record of Memo No. 1/376/2008-ਅੱਖ-1-1219 dated 18.10.2008 issued by Additional Director, Food and Civil Supplies to Deputy Director Field and all the district controllers Food and Civil Supplies and consumer affairs, Punjab.
d. Concerned Clerk from the Office of Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, Chandigarh alongwith Complete Original record of DO No. RPII(2085)-2010/267 dated 03.09.2010 issued by Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab issued to Cabinet Secretary Government of India. e. Concerned Constable from Police Station Sadar Patiala alongwith certified copy of FIR NO. 187/2012 and 188/2012.
4 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -5- f. Concerned clerk from the office of Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Punjab alongwith complete original record of DO No. RP-1(2094)-2010 sent by Chief Minister, Punjab to Union Minister for Agriculture, Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution.
g. Concerned clerk from the office of Ministry of Consumer Affairs- Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, Number 1-5/2009- PY.I i.e. Meeting held on 08.09.2010 regarding milling/disposal of PAU-201 variety of Paddy.
5. The respondent(s) filed their reply, specifically taking numerous objections in the application, which reads thus:-
"1. That the present application has been filed just to delay the proceedings in this case. The case was registered on 06.12.2012 against the accused and he was earlier charge sheeted on 02.11.2017. The charge sheet was again framed on 16.09.2023 against the accused Deepak Suri, Balram Singh and Rajinder Singh. Rajinder Singh and Balram Singh filed revision petition against the order dt. 16.09.2023 and the revision was accepted by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and out of which PW6 Balram Singh and PW7 Monita Sharma were examined in chief on 30.09.2024 but the counsel for the accused did not cross-examine the witnesses despite the opportunities given to the accused and cross-examination was ordered to be nil on 14.10.2024. PW 4 Gaurav Ahluwalia District Manager of PUNSUP was examined on 23.01.2019, 23.08.2024 and 20.09.2024 and his cross- examination was conducted by the counsel for the accused in parts on several times and concluded cross- examination on 10.03.2025. On most of the dates the accused sought exemption from personal appearance in 5 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -6- the proceedings of this case. The prosecution evidence was closed by order on 08.05.2025 and case adjourned to 21.05.2025 for recording statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused took several adjournments and statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.08.2025 and the case adjourned to 22.09.2025 for defense evidence but neither application for summoning of any witnesses was filed by the accused nor was any witness examined in defense. Even the accused himself did not appear and sought the personal exemption and case was adjournment for 03.10.2025. Then the case was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the accused on 09.10.2025 but no witness was produced by the accused and costs was imposed upon the accused and the case was then adjourned to 14.10.2025 for production of the defense witnesses but no witness was examined or summoned inspite of the facts that the accused was having knowledge of the record which now the accused has applied for summoning of witnesses after the closure of his evidence. Even no cost was deposited with DLSA. At the request of the counsel for accused the case was adjourned to 27.10.2025 subject to last opportunity for DWs but no defense evidence was produced and the defense evidence was closed by order and the case was adjourned to 30.09.2025 for arguments and the present application has been filed to summon witnesses.
2. That the accused was having knowledge of all the records which has been mentioned in the application but no document was put to the witnesses who were examined by the prosecution and as such the accused cannot take advantage of his own wrong. Even the documents which were being summoned are not perse admissible and required further evidence.
6 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -7-
3. That it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Virendra Singh Kushwah Versus State of Madhya Pradesh that Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 311- Summoning of defence witnesses-Application filed by the accused to summon certain witnesses, who were officers that conducted the inquiry leading to the criminal case rejected-Held, enquiry report by an authority is merely an opinion and not admissible unless its contents are proved by evidence-Application found to be an attempt to delay proceedings-Dismissal upheld.
6. On consideration of the pleadings and respective arguments, the trial Court dismissed the application filed under Section 348 BNSS, vide its order dated 02.01.2026, thus resulting in the institution of the present petition.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and that during the marketing season 2009-10, the procurement agencies procured the new variety of rice 'PAU-201'; which was non-standardized and without quality check, as a result thereof, there was a shortage of custom milled rice. The specifications prescribed by the Secretary and Director, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab, had not been adhered to by the procurement agencies. Thus, the shortage in the supply of milled rice was not on account of any embezzlement but on account of the respondents having failed to carry out the sampling analysis and adhere to the prescribed norms before procurement of the stock. It was pleaded that in order for the respondent to prove its case, the said witnesses were required to be examined. She submits that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Varsha Garg versus the State of Madhya Pradesh 7 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -8- and others", reported as (2023) 19 SCC 646, the Court has wholesome powers in terms of Section 311 CrPC to summon and re-examine the material witnesses and closure of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar. She contends that such a power can be exercised at any stage if the evidence appears to the Court to be essential for a just decision of the case. She thus contends that the statutory provision is to be read substantively and not as a tool to deny a fair opportunity to the parties in the lis. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:-
48. The court is vested with a broad and wholesome power, in terms of Section 311 CrPC, to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any material witness at any stage and the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar. This Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh, (2004) 4 SCC 158 while dealing with the prayers for adducing additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC at the appellate stage, along with a prayer for examination of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC explained the role of the court, in the following terms : (SCC pp. 188-89, para 43):
"43. The courts have to take a participatory role in a trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confer vast and wide powers on presiding officers of court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence-collecting process. They have to monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record. Even if the prosecutor is remiss in some ways, it can control the proceedings effectively so that the ultimate objective i.e. truth is arrived at. This becomes more necessary where the court has reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the prosecutor is
8 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -9- not acting in the requisite manner. The court cannot afford to be wishfully or pretend to be blissfully ignorant or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and courts could not also play into the hands of such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness."
(emphasis supplied)
49. Further, in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374, the Court reiterated the extent of powers under Section 311 and held that : (SCC p. 392, para 27) "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 of 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 the 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 any 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."
9 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::
CRR-274-2026 -10-
(emphasis supplied)
Xxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx
52. For the above reasons, we have come to the
conclusion that the decision of the High Court which is impugned in the appeal is unsustainable. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 8-4-2022 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 57152 of 2021 as well as the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dr Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore dated 13- 11-2021 in Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2016 dismissing the application filed by the prosecution. The application filed by the prosecution for the production of the decoding registers and for the summoning of the witnesses of the cellular companies for that purpose is allowed. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dr Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore is directed to conclude Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2016 by 31-10-2022.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State, however, contends that the present petition is misconceived and that the order dated 02.01.2026 has been rightly passed by the Trial Court after taking into consideration all the circumstances. He contends that the chargesheet was earlier filed in November 2017, and the charge was again framed on 16.09.2023. The prosecution examined 08 witnesses, out of which PW-6 Balram Singh and PW-7 Monita Sharma were examined-in-chief on 30.09.2024. Counsel for the petitioner did not cross-examine the said witness despite multiple opportunities, and cross-examination was ordered to be Nil on 14.10.2024. PW-4 Gaurav Ahluwalia, District Manager of PUNSUP, was examined on 23.01.2019, 23.08.2024 and 20.09.2024; his cross-examination was conducted by the counsel for the petitioner in parts on several occasions and concluded on 10.03.2025. Neither of the said witnesses was confronted with 10 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -11- any documents, nor were any suggestions made with respect to the documents which are now sought to be produced. The prosecution evidence was closed by order on 08.05.2025, and the case was adjourned for recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to 21.05.2025. After several adjournments by the petitioner, the statements were eventually recorded on 20.08.2025, and incriminating material was put to him. No plea of defence or reference to the said documents was made by the petitioner during the course of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The matter was thereafter fixed for 22.09.2025 for defence evidence, but no application for the summoning of any other witness was filed by the petitioner-accused. The matter was thereafter adjourned on 03.10.2025, 09.10.2025, 14.10.2025 and 27.10.2025.
9. The defence evidence was thus closed thereafter by order. He contends that the instant application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved only to delay the proceedings, without reflecting any significance of the evidence or the testimony. He contends that the petitioner now wants to cull out a new defence, notwithstanding that no such suggestion or defence had been set up by the petitioner-accused by confronting the prosecution witnesses or at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varsha Garg(supra) is not being disputed; however, considering the circumstances of the present case, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the evidence has rightly not been allowed as it was never the line of defence adopted by the petitioner and would amount to starting the evidence de novo. The adjudication of the case is already much delayed and the trial commenced in 11 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -12- the year 2017. It is on account of the delay on the part of the petitioner that the trial has failed to conclude.
10. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition, as well as the judgment relied upon by Counsel for the petitioner.
11. A specific question was put to the Counsel for the petitioner as to whether any suggestion had been put to the prosecution witnesses, at the time of their cross-examination, with respect to the relevance and in the context of the documents/witnesses sought to be adduced or not. She fairly concedes that no such suggestion had been put to the prosecution witnesses at the time of recording their testimony.
12. A question was also put to the Counsel for the petitioner as to whether any such plea of defence, based upon the documents now sought to be exhibited, had been taken by the petitioner at the stage of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. She fairly concedes that no such plea had been raised by the petitioner at the stage of recording of their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
13. It is further put to the Counsel for the petitioner as to whether details of any witnesses to be cited by the petitioner were furnished before the trial Court. She fairly concedes that no such list of witnesses was furnished by the petitioners during the course of defence evidence, after recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
14. In view of the aforesaid fair response, this Court now proceeds further to examine the other arguments advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner. While the ratio of the judgment laid down in the matter of Varsha 12 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -13- Garg(supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not disputed, a judgment has to be read in the facts of each case. The operative part of the order passed by the trial Court reads thus:-
"4. The perusal of the record shows that the present case was pending for defence evidence since 20.08.2025. The accused had availed 5 opportunities over a period of more than two months for his evidence but not even a single witness was examined by him during the said period. Even no list of witness was filed by the accused. Vide order dated 09.10.2025, cost of Rs.1,000/- was also imposed upon the accused and last opportunity was granted to him for his evidence. When no witness was examined by the accused despite availing 5 opportunities and even the said cost was not paid by him, the defence evidence was closed by Court order.
5. Shockingly, the accused did not even appear before the Court on all the five dates when the case was listed for defence evidence. The distance between Chandigarh and Patiala is less than 100 kms and there was no impediment for the accused to appear in the Court when the case was listed for defence evidence.
6. The perusal of the record further shows that the Ld. Defence Counsel had been seeking repeated adjournments for concluding the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The so-called 50 adjournments availed by the prosecution for concluding its evidence was the result of the delaying tactics used by the accused during the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses. The perusal of the entire record would show that the complainant PW-4 Gaurav Ahluwalia had to appear in the Court on 8 occasions for the Ld. Defence Counsel to conclude his cross-examination. The Ld. Defence Counsel could have asked the said witness to produce the said record in the Court. PW-4 is an employee of PUNSUP and he could have very easily produced the entire record which
13 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -14- the accused wants to summon at this stage. It is not the case of the accused that the Ld. Defence Counsel did not have sufficient time during the cross-examination of the said witness as the said witness had appeared in the Court 8 times for his cross- examination. It is settled law that one who seeks equity must do equity and equity is not in favour of the accused in the present case.
7. The prosecution has rightly pointed out that the Ld. Defence Counsel should have summoned the documents mentioned in the present application during the prosecution evidence so as to put the said documents to the witnesses of the prosecution who would have the chance to give their explanation qua the documents in question. No purpose would be served by summoning the said documents at this stage.
8. The application shows that the accused has sought to summon various documents from 6 Government offices without even mentioning as to how each document is relevant to his case. It appears that the purpose of the present application is to delay the case/police challan which is already more than 8 years old. The FIR in question is more than 13 years old. If the intention of the accused was bonafide, he would have taken the assistance of the Court during the aforesaid 8 years to summon the said documents. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that the documents referred in the application are of no relevance for the purpose of deciding the present case. Moreover, this Court has already closed the evidence of the accused. This Court has no jurisdiction to review its order as provided in Section 362 of Cr.P.C. It appears thai the purpose of the present application is to prolong the present case and the accused has been successfully doing it for the last 13 years. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is satisfied that the application in hand is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed. It be tagged. Matter be now listed for final arguments and for compliance of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. for 14 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -15- 12.01.2026. The accused is also directed to personally appear before the Court on the said date and no adjournment application of the accused shall be entertained. Short date is given as the present case is more than 8 years old and it is an Action Plan case."
15. For the facility of reference, Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 is extracted as under:-
Section 348 BNSS "Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.
16. It is evident from a perusal of the above that the Court is specifically empowered to summon any material witness or examine any person who is present, even though not summoned as a witness, if the evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The prime consideration for summoning of any witness or as to whether such witnesses are material and necessary for the "just decision". The element of just decision and the significance of the testimony have to be seen in the circumstances of each case. The plea of the petitioner could have been well made out had the prosecution witnesses been cross-examined with respect to the defence sought to be argued and now sought to be proved before the Court. The Counsel for the petitioner chose not to cross-examine two witnesses and despite cross-examining a third witness on multiple occasions; no suggestions of any nature whatsoever had been put to the prosecution 15 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 ::: CRR-274-2026 -16- witnesses in the context of the documents/evidence now sought to be produced. No such defence was also taken even at the stage of Section 313 Cr. P.C. The relevance of the evidence sought to be examined has to be seen in the context of the case already set up by the parties seeking re- examination/further examination of material witnesses. Once the defence was never established on the lines of the documents now sought to be adduced, the petitioner cannot be permitted at this stage to reinvent a defence under the garb of an application under Section 348 BNSS. Such documents, even if adduced, cannot be taken into consideration since the prosecution witnesses were never confronted with them and no such suggestion was ever put to them at the stage of their cross-examination.
17. Section 348 BNSS is not meant to fill a lacuna and to afford a new opportunity to invent a defence. It is only an aid for providing a fair opportunity to a person to prove his/her case/innocence, in the event he/she is unable to, on account of inadvertence or oversight. However, where no such defence has been laid out at any stage at all by the accused, Section 311 Cr.P.C./Section 348 BNSS is not an enabling provision to pave the way for inventing a fresh defence.
18. Finding no error, illegality or perversity in the order under challenge, the present petition is dismissed at this stage.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
FEBRUARY 13, 2026 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
16 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 23:39:49 :::