M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

This criminal petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed to quash the order dated 18.11.2016 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1369 of 2016 in C.C.No. 362 of 2015 by the Special Magistrate-V, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination alleging that the petitioner cross-examined P.W.1 and the matter is coming for defence evidence, but on thorough verification, it came to the notice that some questions on material points were not put to the respondent/complainant with regard to the relationship of the respondent/complainant with the petitioner factory and also contended that there were disputes between the petitioner factory and the respondent/complainant and it covered by Industrial Disputes Act. It is also contended that there is no relationship of debtor and creditor and question of issuing cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not arise and to put certain questions, the witness has to be recalled and prayed to allow the petition.

3. The respondent filed lengthy counter running into four pages raising several contentions mainly contending that the cheque dated 31.12.2013 for Rs. 83,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Dr A.S. Rao Nagar Branch, issued towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt. When it was presented for encashment, the same was returned on 02.01.2014 with an endorsement that 'the account was blocked'. The petitioner cross-examined PW.1 at length in the month of March, 2016 and that PW.2 also examined after several adjournments and that the matter was posted for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, there are no grounds to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination.

4. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition holding that the law of the land or the rules of local administration need not be elicited from the mouth of the witness and that the Court can take judicial notice of law of the land or other rules as well as provisions of the special Act. Therefore, denied to recall PW.1 in exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal petition is filed on various grounds mainly contending that the order passed by the trial Court is not supported by specific reasoning and the petitioner posed certain questions regarding relationship of employee and employer, which is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to elicit those aspects PW.1 has to be recalled and finding of the trial Court is against the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in P. Chhaganlal Daga v. M. Sajay sahu, (2003) 11 SCC 486 and prayed to set aside the order by recalling PW.1 for further cross examination to put certain questions, which the petitioner mentioned in the petition.

6. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court referred above and in the absence of any reason, the order is liable to be set aside and prayed to set aside the same. Learned counsel placed reliance on P. Chhaganlal Daga's case referred 1st supra, Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell (1996) 6 SCC 110 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shivkumar Yadav and another, (2016) 2 SCC 402 Basing on the principles laid down in Rajendra Prasad's case 2nd supra he contended that the witness can be recalled to do complete justice to both parties and set aside the order passed by the Court.

7. The reasons assigned by the petitioner to recall PW.1 is that so far he has to put certain questions relating to relationship of employer and employee, which is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act while admitting the other contentions, Section 311 Cr.P.C. gives general power to the Court to summon material witness or examine any person as a witness if the evidence is essential for just decision of t