JUDGMENT

Rohit B Deo, J. - Heard Mr. A. Ananthakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Doifode, the learned APP for respondent 1/State. The learned counsel representing respondents 2 and 3 did not appear, and therefore, this Court requested Mr. M.K. Pathan, the learned counsel to represent respondents 2 and 3 as Amicus Curiae. Accordingly, Mr. M.K. Pathan, the learned counsel has assisted the Court.

2. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 faced trial for offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC") in Regular Criminal Case 3/2007.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court 3) was pleased to acquit the petitioner and convict the respondents 2 and 3 vide judgment dated 15.3.2014.

4. The State did not challenge the acquittal of the petitioner.

5. Respondents 2 and 3 challenged the conviction in Criminal Appeal 40/2014.

6. Respondents 2 and 3 preferred application (Exh. 27) in the Criminal Appeal purportedly under section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("Code") seeking recall of the complainant (PW 1) for further cross-examination and for summoning the Investigating Officer, who was not ex