IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 31.03.2009 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN Crl. R.C.Nos.1479 and 1480 of 2007 and M.P.Nos. 1 and 1 of 2007 Jose Ukkuru .. Petitioner in both the revision petitions vs. Southern Iron and Steel Company Rep. by its Manager, P.Boopalan S/o. M.Periasamy, Pottaneri Mecheri, Mettur TK, Salem District. .. Respondent in both the revision petitions PRAYER : Revision Petitions filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order, dated 05.09.2007 made in Crl.M.P.No. 2365 of 2007 in C.C.No.119 of 2006 and Crl.M.P.No.2364 of 2007 in C.C.No.103 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur, Salem District. For petitioner : Mr.S.Lakshmanasamy in both the criminal revision petitions For respondent : Mr.S.K.Nachimuthu in both the criminal revision petitions COMMON ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner / accused has filed the criminal revision petitions, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, seeking an order to call for the records and set aside the order, dated 05.09.2007 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 2365 of 2007 in C.C.No.119 of 2006 and Crl.M.P.No.2364 of 2007 in C.C.No.103 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur, Salem District. 3. It is seen from the records that the respondent herein has filed Crl.M.P.Nos. 2364 and 2365 of 2007 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall P.W.1, in order to mark a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ document, a subsequent letter sent by the petitioner herein to the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial court has allowed the petitions filed by the respondent, though it would affect the right of the petitioner herein. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitions under Section 311 Cr.P.C were filed only to fill up the lacuna. 5. Per contra, Mr.S.K.Nachimuthu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that a case was registered on the complaint given by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, since five cheques issued by the petitioner on various dates, each for the value of Rs.10 lakhs were dishonoured by the bank. The said cheques were dishonoured by the bank, due to insufficient funds, hence the respondent herein lodged two separate complaints, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, after issuing legal notice, as contemplated under the Act. 6. It is seen that in the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C before the Court below, the respondent has specifically averred that during the pendency of the cases before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore and learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, the petitioner / accused approached the respondent / complainant and expressed his desire to settle the claim of the complaint and handed over two Demand Drafts, each for Rs.5 lakhs and requested the respondent / complainant to adjust the same towards the old dues. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid petitions, under Section 311 Cr.P.C, only for the purpose of marking the covering letter of the petitioner herein. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, recalling P.W.1 for marking the covering letter sent by the petitioner would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. It is seen that the court below in the impugned order has discussed the aforesaid facts in detail. 7. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows : "Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. " 8. In the instant case, the respondent herein has specifically stated the reason that subsequent to the examination of P.W.1, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ covering letter along with two Demand Drafts for the value of Rs.5,00,000/- each was sent by the petitioner / accused. Hence, the letter has to be marked as document, by recalling P.W.1, only for the purpose of marking the document. In such circumstances, the revision petitioner / accused will also have right of cross-examining the witness, who is being recalled. The petitioner / accused has not disputed the fact that the alleged covering letter and the two Demand Drafts were sent by him to the respondent. sent the covering letter along with two demand drafts for the value of Rs.5,00,000/- each and hence, the covering letter has to be marked as document by recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the document. In such circumstances, the revision petitioner / accused is also having right of cross-examining the witness. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the Court below has properly passed orders, under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned order, so as to warrant any interference by this Court and further, the petitioner is having right to cross-examine the witness, P.W.1, who is to be recalled for marking the document and therefore, the petitioner would not be prejudiced by the impugned order passed by the court below. Hence, I am of the view that the criminal revision is not legally sustainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the criminal revision petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the case relates to the year 2006 and in the earlier revision preferred by the petitioner, this Court was pleased to direct the court below to dispose the cases within the time frame and further, requested this Court to direct the Court below to dispose the cases within the time limit fixed by this Court. Since the matter is of the year 2006, I find it just and reasonable to direct the Court below to dispose the cases, according to law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without any further extension of time. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar tsvn https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur. 2. Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.R.C.Nos.1479 and 1480 of 2007 NM(CO) RVL 09.06.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/