ORDER :

These petitions are filed by the complainant under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, before the trial Court challenging the common order passed on applications filed under Sections 311 and 91 of Cr.PC wherein prayer was sought that the complainant wants to confront some crucial documents so as to prove his case and sought short date to further examine the witness to furnish some additional documents to be received from the Bank authorities and the documents such as statement of bank accounts and details of the account pertaining to the accused from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2012 are very much necessary and have to be summoned from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Yenumulapally Branch, Andhra Pradesh and initially the Bank’s name was called as ING Vysya Bank Limited and now said Bank is merged with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. The statement of account details are in custody of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and hence prayed the trial Court to pass order for summoning the Branch Manager and order to produce those two bank accounts. The grounds urged in the application is that on perusal of the complaint, account statement clearly reflects the details of the accounts of the accused and name is reflected bank account’s holder. It is prima facie case of the complainant and therefore the trial Court ought to have permitted to prove his case by giving an opportunity.

2. Learned Counsel also filed application under Section 311 of Cr.PC for recalling of DW.1 for cross examination and in order to substantiate the claim of the complainant, further cross examination is necessary.

3. Those two applications are objected by the respondent/accused herein contending that witness DW.1 has been cross examined long back and thereafter other witnesses were also examined and accused also led his evidence and he has been cross examined in length on different occasions. Instead of arguing the case, the application is filed at the belated stage and there cannot be any order.

4. The trial Judge after hearing both the sides rejected the applications on the ground that both the parties have led their evidence and the complaint was filed in the year 2015. The complainant also examined two witnesses PW.2 and PW.3 and when the matter was posted for arguments, the present applications are filed. The documents sought by the complainant can be obtained under the Right to Information Act and without obtaining the documents, he has filed these two applications for summoning the Branch Manager of the Bank.

5. Though DW.1 has been cross examined on three occasions to the fullest satisfaction, there is no any merit. Hence, the complainant is before this Court in all the matters contending that the trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that complainant can get documents through Right to Information Act and already the matter has been reached the stage of final arguments and no need to produce the said documents.

6. Learned Counsel would vehemently contend that even after rejection of the application also when the application was given to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, the same was rejected giving reasons that the Bank is a private entity, it does not come within the purview of the Act and as such not required to furnish any information under the Act. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that in view of the order passed by the trial Court, the complainant is not able to prove his case to substantiate his case.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that the documents summoned from the Bank pertaining to the years 2009 to 2012 and that the witnesses were examined long back and DW.1 was examined and cross examined. Instead of addressing the arguments on merits, the complainant is protracting the proceedings and the application is filed at the belated stage and he ought to have filed applications in the earlier stage when he examined the witnesses on behalf of the complainant and after closure of the cross exami