THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4966 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 The Petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.286 of 2008 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Viljayawada. The offence alleged against the Petitioner in the said case is one punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 It is seen that when the criminal case C.C.No.286 of 2008 was at the stage of arguments, the Petitioner filed a petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.1 i.e. the complainant to further cross examine him with reference to certain documents in O.S.No.464 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The plea of the Petitioner is that the plaint copy, the decree therein and E.P. proceedings would show that the complainant was one of the defendants in the said suit and he was not in a position to pay the decretal amount and therefore that would probablise the Petitioner’s plea that the complainant was not in a position to lend the money. 3 The trial court did not consider the above plea of the Petitioner and dismissed the Petitioner’s application i.e. Crl.M.P.No.4685 of 2010, which was filed to recall P.W.1, by its order dated 19.04.2011. It is, questioning that order, the Petitioner has come up with this petition. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Godrej Pacific Tech. Limited Vs. computer Joint India Limited[1] and pointed out that in view of the principle laid down in the said decision, the Petitioner should be permitted to recall P.W.1 and the order of the trial court must held to be wrong. There is no dispute about the proposition that where ends of justice require, a witness can be recalled at any stage of the case. However, the question is whether there is justification for the Petitioner for recalling P.W.1 in the circumstances of this case. 5 The trial court in paragraph 5 of its order observed that the suit O.S.No.464 of 2002, referred to supra, was filed by some third party against the complainant and some others and it has no relevance to the controversy in the C.C. The present C.C. is of the year 2008 and the cheque in question is dated 21.12.2005. This apart, the Petitioner filed the present petition when the case was at the stage or arguments. The Petitioner says that the documents in the above civil suit, if permitted to be brought on record, would improbablise the complainant’s version that he has capacity to lend amount. The trial court considered this aspect and held that having regard to the controversy in the criminal case, the above suit and its documents have nothing to do and in that view of the matter it rejected the application. 6 Having regard to the fact that the case was at the stage of arguments and having regard to the reasons given by the trial court I am of the opinion that it does not suffer from any material irregularity or infirmity. Accordingly this petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ------------- 23.06.2011 Kvsn [1] (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 108