The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the limitations and requirements for invoking this provision.

JUDGMENT

SURENDRA PANDHARINATH TAVADE,J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patoda, District Beed in Summary Criminal Case No. 477 of 2010 dated 26th August, 2019, whereby respondent No.2 is allowed to re-examine himself to prove the document mentioned in the application.

3. It is contended that the trial Court has not considered the provision of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and wrongly allowed the application. It is contended that respondent No.2 has fled criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner on 16.10.2010. Thereafter, respondent No.2 fled affidavit of evidence on 24.02.2012. He was cross-examined by the petitioner. Thereafter, he adduced evidence of his witnesses on 20th April 2013. It is also contended that respondent No.2 has fled pursis for closing of evidence. Thereafter, he submitted applications for examination of Bank officers. The said applications came to be allowed. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has also called Manager of State Bank of India, Patoda Branch to prove the documents relating to the cheque in question. The said application was allowed. It is contended that on 26th June, 2019 respondent No.2 fled an application under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon the petitioner to admit or deny the documents referred therein. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, petitioner fled an application below Exh. 86 wherein he prayed for his re-examination to prove the original cheque, Bank receipts, Bank memorandum, notice issued by him and postal acknowledgment of petitioner. The said application was objected by the petitioner but it was allowed. The said order is under challenge.

4. It is contended that respondent No.2 is trying to fill in lacuna, he was given sufficient opportunity to adduce his evidence but still no care was taken by respondent No.2 for proving all his documents. It is contended that even after the closing of evidence the trial Court had granted an opportunity to respondent No.2 to examine the witnesses but still respondent No.2 has not taken care and thereafter by fling application below Exh. 86 prayed for his re-examination which is not permissible. It is contended that the order passed by the trial Court is against law and it may be quashed and set-aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Court has ample powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall the witness already examining in the case for proving the document. It is contended that the provision of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked at any stage of the trial including at the stage of judgment. He also submits that some documents were remained to be proved on behalf of respondent No.2, therefore, respondent No.2 submitted an application for his re-examination which was granted as per the provision of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court has rightly used its discretion and passed the impugned order which is just and reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order of trial Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7. Perused the impugned order. To appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it is required to be seen the chequered history of the litigation. Admittedly, the complaint came to be fled on 16th October, 2010. Respondent No.20 fled his affidavit of evidence on 21st February, 2012. His cross-examination was completed on 16th September, 2012. Thereafter, petitioner has fled affidavit of his witnesses but he remain absent, therefore, the affidavit was treated as canceled. Thereafter, on 12th August, 2013 respondent No.2 fled evidence close pursis which was taken on record.

8. It