1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.319 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 S.Baskar : Petitioner/Respondent/Accused Vs. T.Sukumar : Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order made in Crl.M.P.No.7265 of 2010 in S.T.C.No.3500 of 2010 dated 24.03.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur. For Petitioner : M/s. M.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondent : Mr.P.Natarajan O R D E R By consent, the main revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.3728 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam and it has been filed by the respondent/complainant to prosecute the revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. After completion of the complainant side evidence, the revision petitioner/accused examined himself as R.W.1 and examined R.Ws.2 and 3. 4. After completion of examination of the revision petitioner as R.W.1 on 29.07.2010, the respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.7265 of 2010 on 18.08.2010 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to recall R.W.1/accused stating that he is to be examined once again with regard to the legal aspects. 5. The said petition was strongly opposed by the revision petitioner by filing a counter stating that the reasons stated in the petition are unsustainable and it has been filed only to drag on the proceedings and to harass him. 6. The Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur on taking into consideration the averments made in the petition and counter, has ordered the petition stating that in the event of recall and further cross-examination of R.W.1, he will not be put to any prejudice. Challenging the vires of the said order dated 24.03.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.7265 of 2010, the present revision is filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that the petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is bereft of any material particulars and therefore, the trial Court has committed a grave error in ordering the petition and hence, prayed for setting aside the order. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that since the question of legal aspect has been omitted to be put to R.W.1/accused, the petition has been filed and the trial Court by assigning proper and tenable reasons, had allowed the petition and since the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction in a proper manner, interference may not be warranted at the hands of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 9. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record and also the oral testimony of R.W.1. 10. Under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the Court has got power to summon or 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. 11. The lower Court on taking into consideration the averments made in the petition and the counter affidavit filed found that the recall of R.W.1 is necessary to arrive at a just decision. Since the trial Court has exercised its discretion in a fair and proper manner inconsonance with Section 311 of Cr.P.C., this Court finds that there is no illegality or irregularity or error apparent in the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the revision petitioner after his recall and re-examination, is at liberty to file appropriate application for recall the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant by adducing proper and sufficient reasons. Though the time limit has already been fixed by this Court in earlier proceedings in Crl.O.P.No.740 of 2011, this Court taking into consideration the present facts and circumstances, directs the trial Court to give preference for its early disposal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.E) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur. +1 CC to Mr.P.Natarajan, Advocate (SR.No.19952) +1 CC to Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, Advocate (SR.No.19988) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.319 of 2011 24.06.2011 akv NSV/12.07.11/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/