IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 480 OF 2008 Gocul Papers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.. ...... ......Applicants V/s Donald Mathias & Anr... ...... ......Respondents. Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal h/f Mr.Prakash Naik, Adv. For the applicants. Mr.Dilimia i/by M/s.D' lima & Associates, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP For the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 26/3/08 PC: The applicants are original accused in a complaint filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Though the present applicants had engaged an advocate to represent the applicants before the trial Court way back on 8.12.05, the applicant No.2 was conducting proceedings himself. Respondent No.1 filed an affidavit of evidence of examination in chief dated 21.3.06. The applicants sought an adjournment for cross examination. The cross examination was conducted on few occasions. Applicant No.2 himself voluntarily moved an application before the trial Court expressing his intention to conduct the cross examination himself and on that count an adjournment was sought on 18.8.06. The trial Court granted adjournment and also permitted the applicant No.2 to commence and conclude cross examination of the witness. 1 The cross examination was completed by the present applicants and after the cross examination the case was adjourned for recording statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The statement of the accused was recorded on 29.12.07. On the next date the applicant engaged another advocate to conduct the case who filed his power on 9.12.07. On 23.1.08 applicants filed application under section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure to recall complainant's witness. In the application no ground whatsoever is set out for seeking recalling of the witness for further cross examination. The trial Court rejected the application and aggrieved thereby the present criminal application has been filed. Perusal of the application moved under section 311 of Cri.P.C. by the applicants before the trial Court reveals only ground for recalling of the witness for cross examination and the same is to the effect that the accused cross examined the complainant's witness is in person and without any legal assistance from the Advocate. It has never been the case of the present applicants before the trial Court that because of the financial constraint the applicants could not engage the services of an advocate. But the record reveals that despite being represented by an advocate applicant No.2 has himself conducted the proceedings before the trial Court. For the first time in the present application filed in this Court a plea is taken that because of financial hardship the applicant could not engage counsel to defend him. The dishonour of the cheque in question is in the sum of about Rs.37 lacs. As the applicant No.2 himself volunteered before 2 the trial Court to cross examine the witness of the complainant at a later stage he cannot seek recalling of witness under section 311 of Cri.P.C. on the ground that he did not have legal assistance. The record reveals that that applicant No.2 cross examined the witness at length. He had engaged an advocate and he could have availed services of the advocate. Having chosen to cross examine the witness personally at a later point of time the applicant could not have moved the application under section 311 of Cri.P.C. Perused the impugned order. Same does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. Hence application is summarily dismissed. 26.3.08 3