A party cannot be allowed to recall a witness for further cross-examination at a later stage if the party had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the appropriate time and did not raise any objection to the closure of the witness's evidence.

JUDGMENT

Subhendu Samanta, J. - This is an application u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code preferred against judgment dated July 2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast track Court No. (ii) Calcutta in criminal revision No. 304 of 2017 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21st September 2017 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 6th Court Calcutta in a complaint case No. C- 449/2013 convicting the present petitioner for having committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentencing him to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant in default to suffer S.I for three months.

2. The brief fact of the instant revision is that the present respondent filed a complaint case u/s 138 of N.I Act before the Learned CMM Calcutta thereafter, the same was transferred to Learned M.M. 6th Court Calcutta for disposal. A cheque was issued by the present petitioner amount to Rs. 1,48,000/- to the respondent which was dishonoured and hence the complaint was initiated. The proceeding was started before the Learned

3. M.M. 6th Court and the evidence in chief of the respondent was filed. He was cross examined in part by the Learned Advocate of the present petitioner and the cross examined could not concluded. However, Learned Magistrate refuses to grant further adjournment for cross examination and close his evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing argument for both the parties Learned Magistrate convicted the present petitioner for having committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Against the said judgment the petitioner filed one criminal revision being No. 304 of 2017 before the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. The revision was heard by the Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court Calcutta who passed the impugned judgment by dismissing the criminal revision.

4. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner frankly submits that as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court. He has paid the entire cheque amount to the respondent. He further submitted before this court that the reasonable opportunity was not given to the present petitioner to cross examine the P.W- 1. He again pointed out that, if the P.W.-1 was sufficiently cross examined the order of the Learned Magistrate would be otherwise. He again pointed out that there are sufficient materials to brought before the Learned Magistrate through the mouth of the P.W.-1. He further pointed out to elicit the truth the present petitioner may be allowed to cross examine the respondent for a single day. He against pointed out that he has already deposited the entire cheque amount, so no injury would be caused upon the respondent if the present petitioner was allowed an opportunity to cross examine the P.W.-1. It is the submission of the petitioner that, one litigant shall not be suffered for the conduct of a lawyer.

6. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent raised on objection. He submitted that several opportunities were given to the petitioner/accused to cross examine the respondent. It would be revealed from the LCR that the Learned Advocate for the present petitioner cross examined the respondent for two days. Thereafter, he prayed for adjournments. He again pointed out that Learned Magistrate without finding no other alternative close evidence P.W.-1 and fixed the date for examination of the accused/petitioner u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He again argued that there are scope for the present petitioner u/s 311 Cr.P.C. to adduce his evidence but he had not avail the opportunity. He also appeared before the Learned Magistrate for recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. No explanation was given by the present petitioner/accused during the course of recording statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the issuance of alleged cheque. He again poin