Section 311 Cr.P.C. affords discretionary power to recall witnesses but must be exercised with caution, not to prolong proceedings without compelling reasons.

ORDER :

Mohammad Nawaz, J.

In all these petitions, parties are one and the same. Petitioners are the accused and respondent is the complainant, before the trial Court.

2. The learned XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, vide impugned orders dated 11.11.2025, has rejected the applications filed by the accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in all the petitions.

3. Petitioners are seeking to set aside the impugned orders and to allow them to further cross-examine PW1/respondent, and PW2.

4. All these petitions arise out of the same issue, wherein the proceedings are initiated before the trial Court by the respondent/complainant for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in respect of dishonour of cheques allegedly issued by the accused. The matter before the trial Court is at the stage of arguments.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, while preparing for final arguments, it came to light that certain crucial questions concerning the letter dated 12.08.2017 and the very authority of PW-1 to depose had not been put to the witnesses during earlier cross- examination and these questions go to the root of the matter and are vital for eliciting the truth, as they directly touch upon the core issues in dispute. It is submitted that sworn statement of PW1 was treated as examination-in-chief and PW-1 was subsequently cross-examined; thereafter the petitioner’s evidence was completed and the matter was posted for arguments. During preparation for arguments, upon receiving instructions, counsel noticed that these essential questions were inadvertently left out despite being necessary to establish the petitioner’s defence. Therefore, an application was immediately filed to recall PW-1 and PW-2 for limited further cross-examination. However, the trial court, without appreciating the crux of the application or the relevance of the proposed questions, mechanically rejected the same.

6. It is further contended that the omission was identified only at the stage of preparing for final arguments, and the settled legal position recognizes that even at the appellate stage, the Court may permit additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. when required to uncover the truth. Hence, the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the recall sought under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was neither to fill lacunae nor to introduce any new material, but only to confront PW-1 and PW-2 with a document already on record and to test PW-1’s competency to depose both being matters essential for a just decision.

7. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that any application seeking recall of witnesses for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must clearly and specifically state the reasons necessitating such recall, and a party cannot be permitted to rely on vague or generalized grounds to reopen evidence. He contended that Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked as a tool to protract the proceedings or to fill up lacunae in the defence at a belated stage of the trial, especially after the matter has progressed to the stage of arguments. The power under is discretionary and intended solely to ensure that the ends of justice are met, and therefore must be exercised with great caution and circumspection and in the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any compelling reason for recalling PW-1 and PW-2, and hence the trial court has rightly rejected the application.

8. Insofar as the prayer of the petitioners to permit furt