Crl. Misc. No. M-38052 of 2010 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-38052 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 24,2011 Gurmeet Singh ................................................................ Petitioner Versus Harpal Singh Khaira .................................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Rahish Pahwa (Dudeja), Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the impugned order dated 3.12.2010 (Annexure P4) passed by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the order dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the JMIC, Ludhiana, has been upheld. A criminal complaint No.16 of 9.4.2010 under Section 311 Cr. P.C. was filed for recalling the respondent (Complainant) for further cross- examination. The petitioner/revisionist Gurmeet Singh had issued a cheque of Rs.97,660/- dated 10.11.2006 in favour of the respondent. When this cheque was presented before the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ludhiana, it was returned uncashed with the remarks of `insufficient funds'. Despite notice, no payment was made to the respondent. A complaint under Section Crl. Misc. No. M-38052 of 2010 [ 2 ] 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted. The petitioner was summoned by the Judicial Magistrate for facing trial under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act. By order dated 20.2.2007, the respondent was examined as PW3 along with Ranjit Singh as CW1 and Ajit Walia as CW2. After examining the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.11.2009 the evidence was closed. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the respondent/complainant PW3 for further cross-examination was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, and revisional authority i.e. District & Sessions Judge on 3.12.2010. Mr. Rashish Pahwa (Dudeja), learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgments in Khushwinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal), Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 909 and Ram Swaroop Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan 2006 Cri. L.J. 1196 to contend that without going into any technicalities to search out the truth, an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant PW3. In view of the settled preposition of law in Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab 2005 Cri. L.J. 1273 that the power to recall a witness should not be exercised for filling up a lacuna left by the prosecution or by the defence. In the present case, the accused had cross-examined the complainant at length after availing sufficient opportunities of cross- examination. At this stage when the trial is about to conclude no indulgence is required. The criminal miscellaneous is dismissed. 24.1.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE