The provisions of Section 311 of the CrPC can be invoked at any stage before the pronouncement of judgment when it is found that the same is necessary for a just decision of the case, but such provisions cannot be invoked to fill up lacunas in a party's case.

1. The subject matter of challenge in the instant criminal revision is an order passed by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to a proceeding under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. It has been vehemently urged by the learned advocate of the petitioner that during the cross-examination of the P.W. 1 the authorized representative of the payee through whom the aforesaid complaint case has been instituted, the said witness admitted that he received a demand draft equivalent to the amount of the impugned cheque as per the meeting held on June 21, 2005, but the witness was silent on the point of statement of his bank account and never examined anybody from the bank as a witness. According to him examination of defence witness to bring on records such bank statement is very much essential for just decision of the case.

The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party vehemently opposed such contention and submitted the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and any interference with the same is not at all called for.

3. Now, having gone through the impugned order, I find the Learned Magistrate rejected such application on the ground the same was moved at a very belated stage and he was of the further opinion that the examination of the witnesses as prayed for is at all essential for just decision of the case.

4. It is beyond any debate that the provisions of Section 311 of the code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked at any stage before the pronouncement of judgement when it is found that same is necessary for just decision of the case. At the same time, it is also well settled that such provisions cannot be invoked for the benefit of any party so as to enable them to fill up the lacunas in its case. The stage at which such provision is invoked, is not at all material when Court found that taking recourse to such provision is essential for just decision of the case. In the case at hand, it appears that the cross-examination of P.W. 1 was concluded on August 28, 2008, thereafter, the examination of the defence witness was concluded on August 17, 2009 and a date for delivery of judgement was fixed and at that stage an application under Section 311 of the code was moved on May 19, 2010. Therefore, it is an admitted position the petitioner is seeking for examination of defence witness nearly after one year and nine months from the date of cross-examination of the P.W. 1 and after examination of defence witness was completed on August 17, 2009 on the pretext the examination of defence witness is necessary with reference to some materials which have been divulged during the cross-examination of the P.W. 1.

5. According to the averment made in Paragraph 5 of the application under Section 311 of the Code, the P.W. 1 in his cross-examination stated that he received a demand draft equivalent to the amount of the impugned cheque/cheques, as per the meeting held on June 21, 2005, but he was silent on the point of statement of accounts of his banker and he has not produced the bank as a witness, though he has encashed and realised the said draft amount as such to bring into records such bank statement, the examination of defence witness is very much essential.

6. Now, having gone through the cross-examination of the P.W. 1, with reference to which, the petitioner is praying for examination of defence witness under Section 311 of the Code, I find the relevant portion of the said crossexamination are as follows;

“Before filing this case I have filed another case being Case No. 988/04 pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in respect of two cheques amounting to Rs. 18 lakhs as principal and Rs. 1,62,000/- as interest. There is a meeting held in the State