THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.111 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.10049 of 2010 in C.C.No.644 of 2009 whereby the petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner herein to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of further cross examination was dismissed. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner is the accused in the said case, which was instituted by the 2nd respondent herein for the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said case after the closure of the cross examination of the 2nd respondent and when the matter was coming up for arguments, the petitioner filed the present petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C. requesting the court to recall the 2nd respondent – complainant for the purpose of further cross examination on the pretext that on the previous occasion when the 2nd respondent was cross examined, his senior counsel was not available and that when he (the petitioner) was examined as D.W.1 the counsel pointed out certain things such as non issuance of cheque towards discharge of any liability. The same was objected to by the 2nd respondent contending that so far the petitioner had taken as many as 11 adjournments and hence no indulgence can be shown in favour of the petitioner. The trial court after making a detailed discussion dismissed the said application by the order impugned in this revision. 3 Heard. 4. No doubt Section 311 Cr.P.C. provides for recall and re- examine any person including the person already examined. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: 311. 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. 4 The purpose for which the petitioner filed the present petition is that during cross-examination of the petitioner as D.W.1, the counsel pointed certain things such as non-issuance of cheque towards discharge of any liability and therefore he felt it necessary to cross examine P.W.1 (2nd respondent herein) on that aspect. But, as seen from the order impugned, the trial court had already dealt with all those aspects and gave a detailed discussion on all those aspects. Hence they need not be reiterated. 5 Further from the order impugned it is to be seen that the petitioner was already given an opportunity to cross examine the 2nd respondent that too after availing so many adjournments. It is only after the entire evidence was closed and also after the petitioner was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and when the matter is coming up for arguments, the petitioner came up with the present petition. It is also born out from the order impugned that on one occasion the petitioner came up with a plea that he would see that the matter is settled out of court. 6 In view of the totality of the circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that though the provision under Section 311 Cr.P.C. prescribes that any person including the person already examined can be summoned for re-examination, the petitioner cannot be shown that much indulgence since he had already availed so many opportunities and hence this court sees no merits in this revision. 7 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. ---------------- 07.04.2011 Kvsn