IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 526 OF 2008 Vilas N. Pawgi..... ...... ......Petitioner V/s Mrs.S.L.Pillai & Anr... ...... ......Respondents. Mr.A.G.Damle, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP For the respondent. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 18/3/08 PC: The present petitioner is an accused in a complaint filed by respondent under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Parties led their evidence and thereafter present petitioner has been filed an application raising objection to the admissibility of two documents (i) the cheque in question and (ii)demand notice under section 138 of the act on the ground that the said documents are not proved in accordance with provisions of Evidence Act. The Court rejected the said application by holding that the objection shall be decided at the final decision of the matter. In reply to the said application the complainant had asserted that he has proved the documents and the documents have been permitted to be exhibited by the Court. At a later point of time, realising that the question of admissibility would cause prejudice to the complainant in the event of the trial Court holding that the documents are not 1 proved in accordance with provisions of Evidence Act, the complainant filed an application under section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code with a view to recall the witness so that documents could be proved as required by law. The trial Court being of the view that for reaching a just decision in the case it is desirable to permit the recall of the witness has allowed the same. It is this order by which the petitioner is aggrieved. Incidentally it may be stated that revision application preferred by the present petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of failure on the part of complainant to prove the two vital documents a right has been accrued in favour of the accused and allowing the application under section 311 would cause utmost prejudice to the accused in the trial, hence takes exception to the order impugned. Reliance is placed by the trial Court on a judgment in the case of U.T. Of Dadra & Haveli & Anr. V/s Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, 2006(2) Bom.C.R. 613. The law in this regard is laid down in para 12 of the judgment which reads thus: “12. A conspectus of authorities referred to above would show that the principle is well settled that the exercise of power under section 311 Cr.P.C. Should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof of such facts which lead to a just and correct decision of the case, this being the primary duty of a Criminal Court calling a witness or re-examining a witness already 2 examined for the purpose of finding out the truth in order to enable the Court to arrive at a just decision of the case cannot be dubbed as “filling in a lacuna in prosecution case” unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice.” 3. In the facts of the present case the two Courts below have found that for arriving at just decision of the case recall of witness was necessary. I do not find any fault with the impugned orders. Possible view of the matter has been taken. Hence no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction at the hands of this Court is called for. Hence writ petition is summarily dismissed. 18.3.08 3