Section 348 BNSS: Power to summon material witness, or examine person present (Formerly Section 311 CrPC)

Section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Power to summon material witness, or examine person present

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 348

Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 311 of the CrPC, 1973) confers plenary and unfettered power on any Criminal Court at any stage of inquiry or trial to summon material witnesses, examine persons present, or recall and re-examine any witness already examined.

Discretionary vs. Mandatory Prongs: First part: Court 'may' summon or examine any person; Second part: Court 'shall' summon and examine or recall and re-examine any person if their evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case.
Plenary Stage Applicability: Can be exercised at any stage of inquiry, trial, or other proceeding prior to the pronouncement of judgment.
Guiding Criterion: Just Decision of Case: The sole touchstone is whether the evidence is essential to arrive at the truth and prevent a miscarriage of justice; not to fill up prosecution lacunae.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374: The Supreme Court authoritatively held that Section 311 CrPC (Section 348 BNSS) is a paramount weapon in the hands of the court to ensure truth prevails; courts must not remain passive umpires when material evidence is being suppressed.
Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203: Affirmed that an application to recall witnesses or produce vital documents cannot be rejected merely because the trial is at an advanced stage if the evidence is essential for a just decision.
Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461: Laid down comprehensive principles governing Section 311: power must be exercised judicially, not to fill up gaps, but to ensure substantive justice.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When critical digital logs, CDRs, or vital witnesses are inadvertently omitted, draft a precise application under Section 348 establishing how the unsummoned evidence goes to the root of the controversy and is indispensable for a just decision.