The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to allow the recall of witnesses under Section 311 CrPC, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of the court process and ensure fair opportunities for the accused to rebut evidence.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. The petitioner, who is an accused in Complaint Case no.1541/1 of 2005 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, has impugned the order dated 10.10.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No.202/2011.

2. Vide impugned order, learned ASJ, I/C Saket Courts, after considering the grounds on which the petitioner/accused wanted to recall CW-1 - the complainant for further cross examination, affirmed the order dated 29.07.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The prayer to further cross examine CW-1 was declined for the reasons given in para 8 and 11 of the impugned order which are extracted as under :-

“8. Recall of CW-1 was prayed by the accused on the ground that the accused wanted to confront him with certain documents which had come on record subsequent to his cross-examination which were not available earlier. He referred, in this context, to the ledger account of Sunil Garments as produced by DW-3 which contains details of payments by another firm namely M/s Sahani Brothers. DW-3 Vipin Gupta is actually Accounts Incharge of M/Section Sahani Brothers, a firm distinct from that of the two parties herein. During his statement, the witness was called upon to produce and prove certain documents in the nature of bills raised by the two firms of the accused and the complainant in respect of payments made to M/s Sunil Garments by M/s Sahani Brothers. The documents that were taken on record included letter dated 18.03.2005 marked as Mark “X” and computer generated bills mark DW3/S. Interestingly, the witness stated even his examination in chief that he would not know whether proprietors of the firms of the complainant and the accused used to work together from M/s Sahani Brothers or not.

11. The complainant is not the author of the documents in question. He cannot be called upon to explain the said documents. Even otherwise, the documents have not been strictly proved on record. The defence theory now sought to be taken was never the case of the accused during the earlier cross-examination. Apparently, the accused wants to drag on with the proceedings. The opportunity having been granted earlier being sufficient, no good grounds have been shown to permit recall under Section 311 Cr.P.C.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents proved by DW-3 were to be confronted to CW-1 – the complainant during cross examination which could not be done earlier as these documents were not in possession of the petitioner during the period the complainant was examined. The same can be confronted now as the documents have been brought on record by DW-3. The same are required to be put to the complainant for the just decision of the case, hence learned MM as well learned ASJ, I/C Saket Courts committed a grave error in dismissing his application under Sec.311 CrPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Vikas vs. Moreshwar in Crl.W.P. No.1086 of 2009 decided on 25.06.2010; Subhash Chand Barjatya vs. The State and Anr. in Crl.Rev.P. No.450/2006 decided on 06.07.2006 and Mohan Lal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1346, in support of his contentions.

4. On behalf of respondent, it has been submitted that the case is fixed for final arguments. The complainant was cross examined at length and thereafter defence evidence was led and closed. The documents sought to be confronted pertain to third party and the purpose of filing this petition is only to delay the trial. The complaint is under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, which was filed on 16.07.2005, is a summary trial but pending for almost seven years.

5. I have considered the rival contentions and also gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case Vikas vs. Moreshwar (Supra), in para 13 it was observed as under :-

“13. Hence, resultantly, the principles of natural justice require that the complainant/respondent be recalled for his cross-examination to enable the