CHAMBA FABRICS Vs. MISTY APPARELS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over an order of the learned judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode dismissing an application filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall P.W.1, this petition has been filed.

(2.) After perusing the materials available before the Court, the Court is of the considered view that in order to avoid the avoidable delay, it would be suffice to give disposal to the petition after hearing the petitioner.

(3.) Admittedly, the complainant/petitioner filed C.C.No.464 of 1997 under Section 138, 141 and 142 of the N.I. Act alleging that a cheque was issued by the accused and the same was placed for encashment. But, the same was dishonoured. Following the same, a statutory notice was issued. But the demands were not met by the accused, which necessitated the complainant to lodge the instant complaint. It was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Admittedly, the evidence on the side of the complainant was over and the accused were also questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Following the same, the defence side evidence was also over. At this juncture, the complainant has filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.1. After hearing both sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the same and rightly too. The purpose for which P.W.1 was to be recalled according to the complainant was to file certain accounts in order to prove his case. The complainant allowed his side evidence to be over and the accused were also questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the defence side evidence was also over, and thus, the matter was ripe for argument. At that stage, filing an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for the production of certain accounts was nothing but only with a view to fill up the lacuna that has already arisen in the evidence, and hence, it should not be permitted. It is needless to say that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is not intended to recall or summon the witnesses to fill up the lacuna that has already arisen in the evidence recorded. Hence, the lower court was perfectly correct in dismissing the application and it is not the stage where P.W.1 could be recalled to fill up the lacuna already occurred in his evidence. Hence, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is also dismissed