S IN THE HIGH COURT OFKARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATEDTHISTHE1St DAYOF JULY2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE CRIMINAL PET1TION NO.10704/2011 BETWEEN: Shri. Shyamkumar P. Boghe, Age: 36 years, 0cc: Business, RIo. H.No.21, Telgu Colony Near Islamiya High School, Belgaum, Pincode-590001. ... PETITIONER [BY SR1.SADASHIV S. PATIL, ADV.,) AND: Shree Maui Mahila Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., New Good Shed, Road Belgaum-59000 1. Rep. by its Manager. RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the orders passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Belgaum, in C.C.No.2137/2009 dated 17.08.2010 and the order passed by the Prl. Dist & Sessions Judge & Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Crl.RP.No.406/2010 dated 2112.2010. This petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following: ORDER The order allowing application filed under Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C. and the order in revision confirming the order of the learned Magistrate, has been challenged in the present petition by the petitioner who is the accused before the trial court. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under: Phe respondent herein is a co-operative Society and filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. to initiate action for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. In pursuance of the process issued, the petitioner appeared before the trial court, P.W. 1 was examined. Later, an application was filed by the respondent under Section 311 of 3 Cr.P.C., stating that he has to produce some more documents before the court and to prove the same, he has sought for recalling P.W.l for his further evidence. The said application was objected by the petitioner and the copy of objection statement is produced at Annexure-B. The trial court after hearing the counsel for the parties, allowed the application. A revision against the order came to be dismissed on merits. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. It is the submissiQn of the lcarned counsel for the petitioner, that he has already cross-examined P.W. 1 and as he has opened his defence, the permission to reexamine P.W. 1 after recalling him, would cause prejudice to his defence. So also it is his contention that the application was filed to fill up lacunae in the 4 evidence. Therefore, he submits that the orders of the court below are both erroneous and illegal. 7. The copy of the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been produced at annexure-A. It reveals that P.W. 1 on behalf of the respondent was examined and his cross- examination was completed. He had applied for recalling P.W.l on the ground that, no documents were produced at an earlier occasion and he has not marked the documents. Therefore, sought for recalling P.W.1. 8. When the complainant produces the document or he is further examined, the petitioner has an opportunity to cross-examine P.W. 1 both on the documents produced and also the evidence given. 9. Despite the fact that he has taken the defence, cross-examination of P.W.l could be done, when P.W. 1 is recalled and examined. Further more, the evidence of the complainant is not completed and the statement of the accused 5 is still to be recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner has to lead the defence evidence. The perusal of thc objection statement produced at anncxure-B does not reveal any ground of filing the lacunac. In the absence of any such specific objection, I do not find that the permission to recall P.W. I can be rejected. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Misc.Crl.15960/2011 for stay does not survive for consideration and it is rejected. Sd/ JUDGE Rms/