VINOD Vs. DHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Shri S.N. Singh for the applicant and learned Counsel Shri M.P. Khajanchi for the non-applicant. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The applicant is accused in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1170/2007 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani and is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The recording of evidence is over and the case is fixed for recording of statement of the applicant under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant had moved an application for recall of P.W. 1/complainant on the ground that the P.W. 1/complainant i.e. non-applicant herein had produced certain documents after the evidence of the complainant was over. Those documents were produced through the Chartered Accountant. Those documents have been exhibited. The grievance of the applicant is that he could not get sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the P.W. 1/complainant with regard to contents of those documents as those documents were not produced in the Court when the P.W. 1/complainant was examined. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the application for recall of the P.W. 1/complainant. The revision of the applicant has also been rejected. Considering the fact that the applicant wants to cross-examine the non-applicant/complainant/P.W. 1 in respect of contents of the documents, which had been produced in the Court later on after completion of evidence of the non-applicant, it was just and proper that the learned trial Magistrate should have granted the prayer for recall of non-applicant for the limited purpose of cross-examining the witness with regard to the documents produced later on. Hence, I pass the following order.