IMPORTANT POINT
There is no limitation on the power of the court arising for the stage which the trial may have reached for examination of a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C but this power can and ought to be exercised in the interest of justice.

R.B. Misra, J.—Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior Counsel along with Mr. S. Saha, learned Counsel for the accused petitioner and Mr. P .K. Biswas, learned Counsel along with Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the complainant respondent.

This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an Order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in C.R. No. 2922 of 2003 on 29.10.2004 whereby learned Trial Court had allowed the prosecution prayer to re-examine the claimant to prove two documents.

2. The brief facts, according to the accused petitioner are that the complainant .respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and a case was registered as C.R. No. 2922 of 2003 wherein learned trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued notice upon the accused petitioner to appear before the Court on 27.9.2003, pursuant to which, the accused petitioner appeared and was enlarged on bail however subsequently charge was framed. However, in the examination under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. the complainant respondent has stated that he has served a notice on 30th July, 2003 by registered post, which was received by the accused petitioner on 31st July, 2003 and since money was not paid up to 31st August, 2003 therefore he has filed the above case. The complainant has also asserted that the cheques submitted to the Bank on 30th June, 2003 were returned for want of money. It appears that the complainant respondent got examined himself to prove deposit of the cheques. As contended in para 3 of the Criminal Revision Petition, that in the cross-examination the complainant has indicated that “it is not a fact that on 30.7.2003, I issued notice to the accused demanding the money aforesaid or that it was received by her on 31.7.2003. It is not a fact that the demand notice for repayment of the money was actually sent to the accused on 20.8.2003 or that the date was inserted therein as 30.7.2003.”

3. PW 2 Uttam Kr. Das and PW 3 Sudhir Sutradhar gave evidence supporting the claim of the complainant respondent.

4. 29.10.2004 was fixed for examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On that date an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant respondent stating that due to inadvertence he could not file two letters dated 5.8.2003 and 20.8.2003 said to have been issued by the accused petitioner, however, these were allowed to be placed and proved before the Court as noted in the impugned Order dated 29.l0.2004. According to the accused petitioner, the effect of cross-examination would be nullified as the Trial Court without assigning any reason is going to consider these documents as there appears nothing, which precluded the complainant respondent to bring these documents at the time of examination as well as the stage of cross-examination. Further, by allowing the documents to be proved the accused petitioner shall be prejudiced and proving of such documents in question shall tantamount to filling up lacuna of prosecution after cross examination.

5. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is quoted as below:

“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person—Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Mohanlal Soni v. Union of India1, and specially referred paragraphs 7, 16, 18, 27. In paragraph 7 of the decision of Mohanlal Shamji (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has analysed the scope of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by prescribing permissive and mandatory obligations and in reference t