The specificity and relevance of applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are crucial, and delay tactics to prolong the trial are not permissible.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - Crl. M.A.12377 /2020 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 1772/2020

3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to set aside and quash the order dated 29.08.2020 passed by Ld.M.M.-04 (N.I.Act)/South-East, New Delhi in complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide CT Cases/3007/2014 titled as Adesh Goel Vs. M/s. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by petitioner/accused no.3 for recall of complainant for further cross examination was dismissed. Further seeks direction thereby to allow the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by petitioner/accused no.3 for recall of complainant for further cross examination.

4. The Respondent No.1/Complainant after examining his witnesses, filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C on 2l.07.2015 for recalling the witnesses, however, allowed by the Trial Court on 20.01.2016. Further, another application u/s 311 was filed by complainant on 29.03.2016 for recalling of CW-8 and the same was also dismissed.

5. On 13.07.2016, while the Petitioner/ Accused No. 3 was cross examining the complainant, however, the Trial Court directed to complete the cross-examination of witness stating that the sufficient time has been given, consequently, several material and necessary questions were left in haste and could not be put to the complainant by Petitioner / Accused No. 3 to his prejudice. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1/Complainant closed the complainant evidence.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that after closing of complainant evidence, the said complainant, filed list of documents dated 14.12.2016 alongwith documents and the same were taken on record by the Trial Court. In addition to above, Respondent No.1/Complainant filed an application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C, after closing of complainant evidence, upon which arguments of both parties were heard by the Trial Court on 14.12.2016. But the Trial Court vide order dated 03.05.2017 held that complainant, at this stage, does not wish to press the application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C and the same was withdrawn.

7. Thereafter, the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 was cross examined by Respondent No.1/Complainant at length, however new documents were produced by Respondent No.1/ Complainant, for the first time, before the Trial Court at the stage of defence evidence and were put to the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 and defence witnesses for questions and suggestions. The Trial Court vide order dated 22.05.2019 recorded two such documents viz. appointment letter and Bank Statement for year 2016-17 produced by Respondent No.1/Complainant for the first time at the stage of defence evidence. The new documents which were produced by Respondent No./Complainant for the first time before the Trial Court at the stage of defence evidence and were put to the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 for questions and suggestions under his cross examination are enumerated as below:-

"i. Ex DW1/X1(Colly) - The ITR of the accused (2014- 2015).

ii. Ex DW1/X2- Leave to defend application filed by the accused in the civil suit.

iii. Ex DW1/X3 - The letter of offer/appointment of the accused in M/s Zexus air services dated 07.12.2016.

iv. Ex DW1/X4 Account ledger enquiry/Statement of the bank account of the accused showing the salary received by the accused as an employee in the company. It is pertinent to note that his appointment as director in the year 2016 whereas the cheques in question pertain to the year 2014.

v. Ex DWl/X5 - PEN DRIVE placed on record by the complainant alleging that it contains the conversation held between the complainant, accused and accused friends.

vi. Ex DW 1/ X6 - Certificate U / s 65B.

vii. Ex DW 1 /X7 - Translated transcript of recording. It is pertinent to note that no certificate under U/s 65B along with translation was given by complainant, it does not show who translated it a