RANJIT KUMAR PODDAR Vs. AVIK BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRR 2180/2009 and CRR 2181/2009 are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE O. P one Arun Kumar bhattacharya lodged a petition of complaint with the learned CJM of Alipore being Case no. C-1798198 (T. R. No. 366/98) against the present petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the N. I. Act. It is not necessary to go into the merit of the case. The prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. Defence also examined its witness and argument was heard. The stage was set for delivery of judgment. Before delivery of judgment an application was taken out by the complainant under Section 311 of the Cr. P. C. Learned trial court observed that provision of Section 311 Cr. P. C. praying for an order for examination of one subhro Kanti Ganguly on the ground that evidence of the said witness is very much necessary for clarification of the stand of the accused and also to assist the court in the matter of arriving at a just decision. The petition was resisted by the accused primarily on the ground that the prayer is a belated one and it is intended to fill up the lacunae by invoking the provision of Section 311 of the Cr. P. C. can be availed of if it appears to be the court that evidence of a certain person is essential to arrive at a just decision of the case and the trial of a case continues till delivery of judgment.

(3.) IT was further observed that it became almost an admitted position from the respective cases through evidence on record that out of a sum of Rs. 1,60,000 payable to the complainant the accused paid a sum of rs. 1,50,000 and the dispute between the parties was with regard to the question as to whether accused had really made an assurance to the complainant to make payment of interest over the said original amount. However, learned trial court allowed the application of the petitioner.