MAJOR SINGH Vs. AMIT VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner (accused) to challenge the order dtd. 9/4/2019 (Annexure P-3), whereby the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana proceeded to dismiss his application under Sec. 311 Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling witness Amit Verma (complainant) for further cross-examination. The trial pertains to complaint brought by respondent under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) The respondent filed a criminal complaint bearing No.COMA-7574/2017 dtd. 3/7/2017 under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner on the ground that the cheque bearing No.201330 dtd. 22/5/2017 for sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 drawn at ICICI Bank Ltd. Jamalpur, Samrala Road, Ludhiana issued in favour of the complainant stood dishonoured because of "insufficient funds". After appearance of the accused in the said complaint case, the witnesses brought by the complainant were cross-examined. In all there were five witnesses examined by the complainant in support of his case and after completion of their cross-examination, evidence was closed on the statement of the complainant on 8/2/2019. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C on 13/2/2019. An application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C was filed by the accused for recalling complainant for further cross-examination. The said application is Annexure P-2. The ground raised in the application was that since CW-5, namely, Vikrant Sharma who already stands examined, was not cited as a witness in the list of witnesses filed with the complain, however, his cross-examination by the defence counsel introduced certain new facts on record, and therefore, in order to bring the true facts, further cross-examination (re cross-examination) of the complainant (CW-1) is necessary. It is pleaded that in case the permission is granted no prejudice shall be caused to the complainant, however, denial would cause prejudice to the accused. The said application was opposed by filing reply on behalf of the complainant, however, the copy of the same is not on record, but the impugned order contains the contents of the reply.

(3.) The trial Court after examining the pleadings of both the sides proceeded to dismiss the application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C vide impugned order dtd. 9/4/2019.