Crl. Misc. No.M-29718 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-29718 of 2010 Date of Decision: October 7, 2010 Balbir Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by respondent- complainant Tarsem Lal. Tarsem Lal had tendered his affidavit in evidence on June 2, 2008. On August 18, 2009, counsel for the petitioner had made a statement that he will cross-examine the complainant on next date of hearing i.e. August 28, 2009 but subsequently on account of non-appearance of the counsel for Crl. Misc. No.M-29718 of 2010 [2] cross-examination, the cross-examination was treated as nil vide order dated August 28,2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mukerian. Petitioner had moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant Tarsem Lal for cross-examination. Vide order dated September 18, 2010, the said application has been dismissed. It is apparent from the circumstances mentioned above that the complainant PW could not be cross-examined for the fault of the counsel for the petitioner- accused. The petitioner- accused has, with an oblique motive waited for the proceedings to continue for a long time after August 28, 2009 and moved the application on September 16, 2010 after a gap of more than one year. This reflects the malice and oblique motive of the petitioner either to harass the complainant or to delay the proceedings. Striking a balance between the rights of accused for a fair trial after having been granted fair opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness and produce his defence and the right of the complainant for expeditious trial, in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant by re-summoning him. The trial Court should have followed the procedure under Section 309 (2) , Explanation 2 Cr.P.C. to adjourn the proceedings to enable the counsel for the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant subject to payment of costs. In the interest of justice, it is ordered that the petitioner will be permitted to re-summon the complainant- respondent subject to payment of costs of `10000/-. The order dated September 18, 2010 is hereby set aside and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed observing that Crl. Misc. No.M-29718 of 2010 [3] petitioner will deposit a sum of `10000/- before the trial Court and in case of petitioner’s doing so the complainant will be summoned to be cross- examined. The trial thereafter will be concluded within a period of three months by giving short dates. After cross-examination, the trial Court will proceed in accordance with law. Disposed of in limine. October 7, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE