Crl.M.No.M-11237 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-11237 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 20, 2010 Davinder Kumar .....Petitioner v. Kailash Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside orders dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure P1), 10.2.2010 (Annexure P2), and for allowing the application filed by petitioner-accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the witnesses for further cross- examination. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. Briefly stated the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed against the present petitioner on 28.9.2004 by the present respondent-complainant. Accused was summoned. Notice on petitioner-accused was served upon 5.5.2005. The evidence of the complainant was closed on 31.8.2007. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 17.9.2007. About 12 opportunities were availed by the present petitioner to lead defence evidence and when no evidence was adduced, the defence evidence was closed by learned Magistrate vide order dated 18.2.2008. Thereafter on 6.2.2009, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed, i.e., after about two years of the closing of the evidence by the complainant for recalling of the witnesses for further cross-examination. Crl.M.No.M-11237 of 2010 (O&M) -2- It has been observed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order that the witnesses were sufficiently cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. The application has been filed at much later stage without giving any cogent reason for recalling them for further cross- examination. Though power to recall any witness for cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C, is a wide one to the Court, but the same should be exercised judiciously. Witnesses cannot be permitted to be harassed at the asking of the accused. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial Court as well as by learned revisional Court in dismissing the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination. Hence, in view of these facts, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. 20.4.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge