:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2052 OF 2007 Walmik Uddhav Parhad ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondent Mr. V.A. Shastry for petitioner. Mr. P.A. Pol, APP for State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. Date Date Date : : : November 02, 2007. November 02, 2007. November 02, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Shastry the learned for the petitioner who is an accused in S.T.C. No.1633 of 2004 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned JMFC at Pune. 2. It appears that after the evidence of the complainant and one more witness was recorded, the accused had stepped in the witness box for his cross-examination on the affidavit filed by him by way of examination-in-chief and his cross-examination was also recorded. Thereafter the complainant moved an :2: application at Exh.66 purportedly under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and prayed for recalling the accused for his cross-examination. The reason for this and as was stated in the application was that a copy of the affidavit by examination-in-chief served on the complainant’s Advocate was incomplete as compared to the affidavit placed on record before the court and this was noticed by the learned Advocate for the complainant belatedly while going through the record of the case. The accused filed his say and opposed the same. The learned JMFC by the impugned order dated 17/7/2007 was pleased to allow the application. The said order, allowing application at Exh.66, was challenged before the Sessions Court at Pune by filing Criminal Revision Application No.698 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. Shastry submits that the order impugned is grossly erroneous and it has resulted in miscarriage of justice in as much as once the accused has disclosed his defence, the application at Exh.66 was nothing short but an attempt to fill in the gaps in the cross-examination. In support of these :3: contentions, he placed reliance on the following three judgments of this court:- (a) Shridhar Waman Surushe vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. [1987(1) Bom.C.R. 533]. (b) State of Maharashtra vs. Anand Namdeo Patil and ors. [2000 (5) Bom. C.R. 503]. (c) Vijaya Trimbakrao Shirole vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. [2006 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 866]. 4. In the instant case the larned JMFC verified the record and thereafter recorded the following findings in the impugned order:- "I found one paragraph on page 3 is missing in the copy supplied to the complainant. Therefore, I find substance in the argument made by the counsel for complainant. I found the substance in the submission made by him that as there was no reference of documents in the affidavit copy supplied to him he has not :4: cross-examine the witness in respect of documents filed by him on record. The last para in the affidavit on record Exh.46 is missing in the copy of the affidavit supplied to the complainant. Therefore, certainly the counsel for complainant was under impression that the copy which is filed on record is the same copy which is with him. Further more considering above facts, I find that for just decision of the case it is necessary to recall the witness only restricted to the last para in the affidavit Exh.46 which is missing in the copy of the counsel for complainant and the relevant papers." . I am, therefore, satisfied that both the courts below JMFC do not commit an error apparent on the face of the record and the order passed by the learned JMFC is only relating to the last para of the affidavit filed by the complainant and which para was missing in a copy of the same supplied to the :5: complainant’s Advocate. The scope of cross-examination is very much restricted and the apprehension expressed that it may cause prejudice to the defence already disclosed cannot be accepted. 5. Petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)