Crl. Misc. No. M-17064 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-17064 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.7.2011. Saroj .......Petitioner Vs. Raj Krishan ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. K.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging the order dated 3.5.2011 (Annexure P-4) whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. After close of the evidence of the respondent, statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.12.2009. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner in March 2011 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recalling of respondent-PW3 for further cross examination. Vide the impugned order dated 3.5.2011, the said application was dismissed by the trial court. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Crl. Misc. No. M-17064 of 2011 (O&M) -2- some vital questions were required to be put to the respondent and hence, it was very essential to recall the respondent for further cross examination. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. vs. Computer Joint India Ltd. 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 897', wherein it was held that re-examination of a witness could be allowed if due to inadvertence, he had not proved relevant documents. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Power to summon material witness, or examine person present:- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, 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.” In the present case, a perusal of the application moved by the petitioner (Annexure P-2) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. reveals that it was averred therein that after the inspection of the file, it transpired that certain points had been missed while conducting cross examination of the respondent and due to this reason, it was very necessary to recall the respondent for further cross examination. Respondent was partly Crl. Misc. No. M-17064 of 2011 (O&M) -3- cross examined on 19.3.2009 and he was further cross examined on 14.12.2009. Thereafter, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Now the case is listed for defence evidence of the petitioner. It appears that the application for recalling the respondent for further cross examination has been filed merely to delay the proceedings. In the application, moved by the petitioner for recalling the respondent for further cross examination, nothing has been specified as to why the necessity has arisen to recall the respondent for further cross examination. Although, the court has the power to recall any witness if it is essential for the just decision of the case under Section 311 Cr.P.C., however in the present case, the petitioner had failed to establish that recalling of respondent for further cross examination was necessary for the just decision of the case. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on different facts. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 22, 2011 Gurpreet