Opportunity for further cross examination can be granted on the condition of compensating the respondent for inconvenience suffered due to adjournments.

JUDGMENT

1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner (original accused) has challenged orders, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 'A' Court, Vasco (hereinafter referred to as the Magistrate) and the Additional Sessions Judge at Margao.

2. By the impugned order dtd. 17/11/2018, the Magistrate dismissed an Application (Exhibit-34), filed on behalf of the petitioner under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to recall the complainant i.e. the respondent for further cross examination. The said Application was filed in the backdrop that on 27/3/2018, the Magistrate recorded that while the complainant and its Advocate were present in Court, further time was being sought on behalf of the accused i.e. the petitioner for cross examining the complainant. The request was rejected and the cross examination was closed. The petitioner contended in the said Application before the Magistrate that since there was a change in Advocates, further time was sought. It was contended that the Magistrate took a harsh view while passing the order closing the cross examination and in the interest of justice, opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner.

3. By order dtd. 17/11/2018, the Magistrate refused to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and dismissed the Application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner was advised to file a Revision Application before the Sessions Court. By the impugned judgment and order dtd. 18/3/2020, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Application as not maintainable on the ground that the order made subject matter of challenge was an interlocutory order.

4. When this Petition was called out for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed challenge on behalf of the petitioner against the order dtd. 17/11/2018, passed by the Magistrate, whereby the Application for recalling the complainant for cross examination was dismissed. Challenge against the order dtd. 18/3/2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the Revision Application was not pressed seriously.

5. Mr. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that after the complaint was filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the year 2017, there were attempts made by the parties to settle the dispute. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat, but despite efforts before the Lok Adalat, the settlement could not be worked out. It is in this backdrop that the complaint filed by the respondent had to be taken up for further consideration by the Magistrate. In the interregnum, the petitioner was constrained to change his Advocate and, on this ground, only one adjournment was sought, but the Magistrate took a harsh view in the matter and on 27/3/2018, closed the cross examination of the complainant.

6. It was submitted that the Magistrate was not justified in taking such a harsh view in the matter and that if the impugned order dtd. 17/11/2018 is not recalled, the petitioner will suffer grave prejudice.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It was submitted that the complaint filed before the Magistrate concerns dishonour of two cheques worth 12 lakhs in total. The petitioner had Rs. given the said cheques towards consideration for sale of scrap of a barge and that the complaint involved the aforesaid huge amount of liability on the petitioner. It was submitted that the Magistrate was justified in passing the impugned order dtd. 17/11/2018, as no ground was made out in the matter for recalling the complainant for cross examination. It was submitted that the matter is still pending before the Magistrate and the petitioner has put the respondent to unnecessary inconvenience.

8. This Court has perused the material on record and heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties. A perusal of the impugned order dtd. 17/11/2018, shows that the