Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives every criminal court the power to summon or recall any witness at any stage where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. Its outer limit is equally settled: the provision serves necessity, not tactics. On 15 September 2026, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 5554/2026 and 5571/2026, Mukesh Puri v. Chandraprakash Vyas, where an accused in a cheque-dishonour prosecution sought — five years into the trial — to summon the bank manager to make points about a bank merger and the state of the account. Justice Sunil Beniwal held the testimony unnecessary: the merger's legal implications and the account statements could be established by other means, and the questions raised could be addressed at final arguments.
The applications
The prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 concerned two cheques presented in March 2019 and returned for insufficiency of funds. Five years into the proceedings, the accused moved the trial court to summon the bank manager, contending that the manager\'s evidence would show that cheques of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur ceased to be valid on the bank\'s merger with the State Bank of India, and that no amount had in fact been debited from the account. The trial court declined; the accused invoked the High Court\'s supervisory jurisdiction.
The High Court\'s reasoning
The court dismissed both petitions on a clean necessity analysis. The legal effect of the merger is a question of law — it can be urged at final arguments, supported if needed by judicial notice under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, without any witness deposing to it. The state of the account is a matter of record — account statements and bank documents already available, or obtainable through the documentary route, establish whether funds moved. Nothing the bank manager could say would add an essential fact that the record could not. The trial court, the High Court added, remains free to address the validity questions at the stage of final arguments.
The subtext is the special character of NI Act trials. Chapter XVII prosecutions are meant to be summary and swift; Section 143 of the NI Act itself directs day-to-day trial where practicable. Courts are correspondingly alert to applications that would convert a documents-driven case into a parade of formal witnesses.
The necessity test in practice
Essential, not useful
The touchstone is whether the evidence is essential to a just decision — not whether it might be marginally useful or would make the record tidier.
Documents before witnesses
Where certified records under the Bankers\' Books Evidence Act or exhibited statements prove the point, oral testimony from the banker adds nothing but time.
Law is argued
Propositions of law — the effect of a merger, the validity of an instrument — are for submissions, and where appropriate judicial notice, not for a witness box.
Stage and diligence
A recall or summoning plea made years into the trial, on material available all along, invites the inference of delay — and courts act on that inference.
Takeaways for cheque litigation
For the defence, the decision is a caution against holding back structural arguments — if the instrument\'s validity or the account\'s state is the defence, build it through documents early, and keep the legal argument for final hearing rather than manufacturing a witness requirement late in the day. For complainants, it is a tool: oppose belated Section 311 (now Section 348 BNSS) applications by showing that every fact sought is already provable on the record, and remind the court of the NI Act\'s summary design. Delhi\'s Magistrates\' courts, which carry one of the country\'s heaviest cheque-case dockets, apply precisely this discipline — and this order supplies a current, citable illustration of it.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the accused trying to establish through the bank manager?
Two propositions connected to the dishonour of cheques presented in March 2019: that the cheques of the erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur became invalid upon its merger with the State Bank of India, and that no funds were actually debited. The court held neither required the manager's oral testimony.
When will a court allow a Section 311 application?
When the evidence sought is essential to a just decision — typically to fill a genuine gap that cannot be addressed through material already on record. Courts weigh the stage of the trial, the diligence of the applicant, and whether the application is a device to delay. A plea raised after five years, on points provable through documents, fails that test.
How are bank records proved without calling the banker?
Certified copies of bank records are admissible under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, and account statements can be exhibited through the ordinary documentary route. Questions of law — such as the effect of a statutory bank merger — do not need a witness at all; they are argued, not deposed to.
What is the equivalent provision after the 2023 codes?
Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 carries forward Section 311 CrPC in materially identical terms: the power is wide, but it is exercised only where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.