ORAL JUDGMENT:

These two applications under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code can be disposed of by common order since they arise out of a common order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

2. The facts giving rise to these applications are as under: Applicant is the complainant in Criminal Cases instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Respondent No. 2 is the accused. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 had issued cheques in favour of the complainant which came to be dishonoured. Since the cheques were so dishonoured notices were issued to respondent No. 2 but respondent No.2 failed to pay amount of cheques inspite of the notice. Hence the complaint came to be filed. Accused after summons was issued, appeared before the Magistrate. The evidence of the complainant was recorded by the Magistrate. There after accused moved several applications which came to be rejected. Ultimately accused filed this application under Section 311 seeking examination of the witness from the bank, Income Tax Office and for recall of the complainant. This application was allowed by the learned Magistrate. Hence these two applications are preferred by the complainant.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants. None appeared for the respondent No.2.

4. It appears from the orders passed by the learned Magistrate that the cross examination of the complainant-Power of Attorney was concluded on 04.04.2006. There after accused moved an application purporting to be an application under Section 243 Criminal Procedure Code and sought to examine three witnesses viz. Postman, Manager of the Bank and Income Tax Officer. This application was heard and rejected on 23.05.06. This order was never challenged before any higher Court. It has thus assumed finality. It also appears from the order of the lower Court that on 10.04.06 another application Ex.55 was moved by accused for calling complainant himself for cross examination since the complainant instead of himself has examined his power of attorney. This application also was rejected and this order too was not challenged before any higher Court. This order, therefore, has assumed finality.

5. It appears from the order of the lower Court that on 21.02.06 accused examined his witness No.2 and did not examine any other witness, hence the case was posted for hearing of arguments. It is further clear that application purporting to be under Section 73 and 45 of the Evidence Act was filed on 20.07.06. That application was also rejected. Later the accused sought three adjournments vide applications Ex. 75, 76 and 77. As per these applications adjournment was granted to the accused for arguing the case. It is further clear from lower Court's order that on 27.11.06 one Thakare Advocate filed his Vakalatnama and filed application for adjournment though the case was fixed for judgment. This application was again granted by the learned Magistrate. On 30.11.06 again Shri Thakare moved an application on behalf of the accused under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant's say was obtained on this application and then both parties filed a joint pursis to exhibit the documents filed on record and in view of that application under Section 311 was not pressed by the accused. On that day i.e. on 30.11.06 again the accused moved an application for adjournment to argue the matter. He requested for a long adjournment and that was also granted and the matter came to be posted on 11.12.06 for hearing of the arguments. Instead of advancing the arguments on 11.12.06 again the accused-non applicant moved an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This application was however granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and that order is challenged.

6. The above facts make it very clear that the only intention the accused has had was to protract the