Power to summon material witness, or examine person present
Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with power to summon material witness, or examine person present. 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 re-call and re-examine any person already examined; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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 re-call and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.
Section 348, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 311 Power to summon material witness, or examine person present Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Natasha Singh v. CBI
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-6.pdf 2013-05-08 (not same-date ROP order-7). Crl A 709/2013. CrPC 311: the court may summon or recall a material witness at any stage if that evidence is essential to a just decision. The power is wide but is not a licence to fill a prosecution lacuna or to delay the trial. Map crpc 311 and successor bnss 348.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 311 (mapping.csv near-identical). Just-decision recall/summon teaching carries to BNSS 348.
-
State of Haryana vs Ram Mehar and OTHERS Etc Etc
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to recall and re-examine witnesses under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, despite its broad language permitting exercise at any stage of trial, cannot be exercised merely on the ground that defense counsel was ill or inadvertently failed to put certain questions to witnesses. The exercise of such power must be justified by established legal principles requiring that the evidence appears essential to just decision of the case, and must serve the ends of justice by discovering truth and obtaining proper proof of facts. Mere illness of counsel or subsequent discovery of inadvertent omissions in cross-examination by a changed counsel do not constitute valid grounds for recall when substantial trial has proceeded, accused have had multiple opportunities to defend, and no showing is made that justice has been denied. The concept of fair trial, while fundamental to Article 21, must be balanced against the interests of victims and society, and cannot be stretched to such extent that it mortgages the systemic order of conducting trials per the Code of Criminal Procedure or permits abuse of process in the name of fairness.
On this section: Power to summon material witnesses or examine persons present, though not summoned as witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; Court shall summon and examine if evidence appears essential to just decision; analyzed exhaustively regarding scope, stage of trial, grounds for exercise, and judicial discretion
-
Sister Mina Lalitha Baruwa vs State of Orissa
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings involving allegations of grave offences such as rape, where a statutory witness (particularly a judicial officer) makes oral testimony that directly contradicts documentary evidence prepared by that witness himself, and such contradiction is brought to the trial court's notice by the victim or any party, the trial court is duty-bound under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall and re-examine that witness if the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. This duty arises independently of whether the victim invokes Section 301 Cr.P.C. (which limits victim's prosecution role), because the proper reconciliation of Sections 301 and 311 permits victims to bring material errors to court's notice, and courts must respond by invoking their broad powers under Section 311 to rectify glaring contradictions. Courts cannot remain passive spectators when such irregularities are brought to notice; they must maintain an active, participatory role to prevent miscarriage of justice. The court's duty is not conditioned by delay if the error is material and affects the just decision of the case.
On this section: The core statutory provision invoked; provides courts with power to summon, examine, or recall witnesses at any stage if evidence appears essential to just decision. Interpreted expansively to cover situations where documentary and oral evidence contradict, particularly when the witness is a statutory authority
-
Sarju @ Ramu vs State of U. P
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases under the NDPS Act, particularly where serious allegations are made against police officials, the procedural safeguards contained in the Act, especially Section 50 requiring that a person to be searched must be informed of their right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, must be scrupulously complied with. Failure to inform the person of this right renders the recovery of contraband suspect and vitiates the conviction where the conviction is based solely on possession of the illicit article recovered during the illegal search. Evidence obtained through violation of Section 50 safeguards cannot be used as evidence of unlawful possession to sustain a conviction. The investigating agency must follow the procedure envisaged by the statute scrupulously, and failure to do so must be viewed seriously by higher authorities. An accused is entitled to a fair trial, and a conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to the concept of justice.
On this section: Court's power to call witnesses; trial court should have exercised this to call Superintendent of Police and verify complaint
-
Deepak Khinchi vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When mandatory sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is not obtained at the outset and the accused is discharged for that reason, the prosecution must be quashed. However, it is open to the prosecution to initiate fresh prosecution after obtaining valid sanction from the competent authority (District Magistrate post-amendment). A delay in obtaining such sanction, even of several years, does not bar subsequent prosecution if: (a) the sanctioning authority is competent; (b) sanction was never refused by the competent authority; (c) the offence is grave involving significant loss of life and property; and (d) the accused is afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The trial court may accept such retrospectively obtained sanction and proceed with trial, balancing the rights of the accused against the rights of victims and the administration of justice.
On this section: Power to recall or re-summon witnesses. The prosecution relied on this section to place the sanction on record and request trial to proceed. The Court did not conclusively determine whether Section 311 was the proper provision but found that in substance, the application was for tendering sanction on record, and the Sessions Judge properly granted it.
-
Ritesh Sinha vs State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in a split decision with no clear ratio decidendi. Justice Desai held that: (1) Voice sample is physical non-testimonial evidence not covered by Article 20(3); (2) A Magistrate has ancillary or implied power under Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act and Section 53 of Criminal Procedure Code to authorize voice sample collection during investigation; (3) Voice prints are like fingerprints and fall within inclusive definition of 'measurements' in Prisoners Act; (4) Voice sample can be included in 'examination' under Section 53 through doctrine of ejusdem generis. Justice Alam held that: (1) There is no express or evidently applicable provision in law authorizing compulsion to give voice sample; (2) Explanation (a) to Section 53 deals only with material and tangible bodily substances, not voice; (3) Voice sample cannot be included in definition of 'measurements' in Prisoners Act; (4) Court should not invent law through interpretation; (5) Law must come from legislature, not through court process.
On this section: Power of Magistrate to order specimen signatures or handwriting. Both judges agreed this section does not apply to voice sample.
-
Sudarshanacharya vs Purushottamacharya
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings, while the right to speedy trial is a fundamental component of Article 21 of the Constitution, courts cannot prescribe automatic or mechanical time limits at the end of which criminal trials must be terminated and the accused acquitted or discharged. Courts must exercise discretion based on the totality of circumstances including the conduct of parties, nature of the offence, and whether allowing proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of process. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be invoked to quash proceedings only when the court is satisfied on material on record that continued proceedings would be an abuse of process or when ends of justice require it. In cases involving criminal breach of trust relating to institutional property, where the accused has engaged in delay tactics through repeated discharge applications and the complainant has demonstrated continued interest in prosecution, the continuation of proceedings does not constitute an abuse of process.
On this section: Court noted this as an available tool for trial courts to effectuate speedy trial.
-
Jagdish Sharma @ Lovely vs State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall a witness is reserved for achieving a just decision on facts and preventing a failure of justice. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right or routinely invoked on the grounds of advocate distraction, convenience, or omission of certain questions during an already concluded cross-examination.
On this section: Power of court to summon material witness, or examine person present. The Court interpreted that this power must be exercised judicially and cautiously, not for the mere convenience of a party or to fill up a lacuna.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sohan Lal Bishnoi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to interfere with a trial court's discretionary order declining to permit video teleconference examination of a witness in a sessions trial, where the trial court has exercised its discretion judiciously, in good faith, on correct and plausible grounds, and where the witness has merely expressed partial reluctance rather than outright refusal to appear, and where the reasons for non-appearance (professional inconvenience and travel expenses) are not substantial or genuine grounds for dispensing with personal presence of witness, particularly when the trial court has already issued summons multiple times and the witness has not specifically stated inability to visit India for compelling reasons.
On this section: Power to summon any person as a witness or to produce any document. CBI invoked this section to summon FBI expert Ms. Amber B. Carr as prosecution witness.
-
Ladi vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused has an indefeasible right to fair trial and equal opportunity to prove his innocence. Electronically recorded conversations are admissible as documentary evidence under the amended Indian Evidence Act and Information Technology Act 2000 when: (1) the conversation is relevant to matters in issue; (2) the voice is properly identified; and (3) the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of tampering, erasure, addition or manipulation. Courts must exercise their powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 Evidence Act to examine witnesses and elicit evidence essential to just decision, taking a participatory role in trials to arrive at truth. When a witness has not been cross-examined on material evidence that subsequently emerges, courts should grant opportunity for re-examination to ensure fair trial.
On this section: Confers power on Court to examine any person at any stage of inquiry or trial. Court held this power must be exercised judicially with circumspection and in exigencies of justice, not as routine matter. Court emphasized discretion is very wide but requires corresponding caution.
-
Dr. Padamsinha B. Patil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the right of an accused to examine defence witnesses is fundamental and ordinarily cannot be curtailed, the court has discretion under Section 233(3) of the CrPC to refuse such applications if made for vexation, delay, or defeating ends of justice. However, this discretion must be exercised judicially. The court cannot reject defence witnesses merely on grounds of delay when the prosecution has taken years to examine its witnesses. Critically, if the prosecution does not examine witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation under Section 161 of the CrPC, and the defence alleges these witnesses were deliberately withheld, the accused cannot be deprived of the opportunity to examine them in defence, provided such witnesses have potential to throw light on the occurrence. The relevancy of evidence must be determined by whether it bears on the facts in issue or relevant facts under Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, not by whether it relates to the character or background of the deceased.
On this section: Cited in conjunction with Section 233 regarding the right to examine witnesses in defence.
-
BHOOP SINGH vs STATE
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The examination of prosecution witnesses in the absence of defence counsel violates the constitutional right to legal representation guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. It is the constitutional duty of the trial court to ensure that an accused person is represented by counsel during the entire course of trial, particularly during examination of prosecution witnesses. The absence of defence counsel during such examination renders the trial fundamentally unfair and vitiates the conviction, necessitating remand for proper cross-examination of witnesses with legal representation.
On this section: Power to recall witnesses; application for recall of prosecution witnesses was dismissed by trial court
-
Krishnaiah vs State Rep. by
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A trial court cannot impose exorbitant or unreasonable conditions on witness recall that economically disable an accused from exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and defend himself effectively. The phrase 'reasonable expenses' in Sections 243(3) and 312 CrPC must be interpreted as a limiting principle, and witness batta must be restricted to actual travelling costs (appropriate class based on officer rank) and subsistence allowance (Rs.600/- per day for necessary days). Any condition that puts economic fetters on the right to cross-examination violates Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution and the principle of fair trial established in Maneka Gandhi. The imposition of costs to legal services authorities as a condition for witness recall is not justified and restricts the right of cross-examination.
On this section: Cited as the statutory basis for the trial court's power to recall witnesses. The court recognized this power but held it must be exercised without imposing fetters on the accused's right to defence.
-
Sri. S. Chandra Sekar Reddy vs Sri. K. Jagadeesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An application under Section 311 CrPC for further cross-examination of a witness following a change of counsel should ideally be allowed by imposing costs if there are relevant points to be addressed, ensuring the ends of justice and the right to a fair trial.
On this section: Provision governing the power of the court to summon or recall witnesses.
-
T.g.suresh vs K.c.jewellers PVT LTD
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court prematurely closes the evidence of a prosecution witness without affording adequate opportunity to the defence counsel to complete cross-examination due to the counsel's temporary absence (even if caused by engagement in another court), the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to set aside such order and permit reopening of cross-examination, provided the accused demonstrates that new evidence has come to his notice and that reopening would serve the ends of justice. The reopening may be conditioned upon payment of cost to the complainant to ensure judicial discipline and discourage frivolous applications.
On this section: Power to recall and examine witnesses. The trial court had dismissed the accused's petition under Section 311 CrPC seeking to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. The High Court's decision effectively overrides this dismissal.
-
Sushil Kumar vs C.b.i.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 311, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where the court is satisfied that there exists a possibility that the accused to be summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction must be based on material evidence and cannot be based on conjectural or speculative grounds. The court cannot use Section 311 CrPC to introduce an entirely new case theory different from the original FIR or initial statements of the complainant. An order summoning a new accused under Section 319 CrPC, which adversely affects the rights of a person not originally a party to the proceedings and who would have no opportunity to challenge it after final judgment, is not an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) CrPC and can be revised by the High Court.
On this section: Power to summon any person as a witness - the trial court invoked this section to examine Ms. Rajshree Ghosh as an additional witness after the death of the original complainant; the court held this power cannot be used to set up a case never alleged by the prosecution
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 348
What have the courts held on Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Natasha Singh v. CBI (08 May 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 311, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 311 (mapping.csv near-identical). Just-decision recall/summon teaching carries to BNSS 348. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 348, section 348 BNSS, section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 348 in crpc and 348 bnss petition format. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Natasha Singh v. CBI (08 May 2013).
What should I read with Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 311 (Power to summon material witness, or examine person present), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 348, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.