Point of Law: The aim of every Court has to discover the truth. Section 311 of the Code is one of many such provisions of the Code which strengthen the arms of a Court in its effort to ferret out the truth by procedure sanctioned by law.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C., read with section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., is preferred by M/S -S.B. Industries, (petitioner No.1) of Borpukhuri & Md. Zakir Hussain (petitioner No.2), S/o Jumil Akhtar, Borpukhuri and Smti. Sahnaz Begum(petitioner No.3), W/o Zakir Hussain, C/o S.B. Electronics, R.N.P. Road, Ward No.14, Hojai, Assam, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders dated 03.05.2018 and 06.04.2019, passed by Shri I.A. Hazarika, Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Kamrup (M) in case No. C. R. 3366/2016 (M/s S.B. Industries & 2 Others Vs. M/s Eastern Infratech). It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order dated 03.05.2018, the ld. Court below has not only closed cross-examination of the P.W.1, but also issued NBWA against the petitioners No. 2 and 3, and vide impugned order dated 06.04.2019, the ld. Court below has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for allowing them to cross-examine P.W.1.

2. Heard Mr. N.K. Murry, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. J. Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:-

“The petitioner No.2-Md. Zakir Hussain and petitioner No.3-Smti. Sahnaz Begum is partners of a Firm, in the name & Style of M/S -S.B. Industries (petitioner No.1). The respondent,-M/S Eastern Infratech is also a partnership Firm, represented by one of its partner namely Shri Pawan Kr. Siotia. The petitioners used to purchase goods from the respondent’s Firm on different dates since 22.07.2015 to 10.03.2016 and towards liquidation of liabilities, as on 10.03.2016, payable to the respondents the petitioners have issued one cheque bearing No. 859928, dated 03.08.2016, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Hojai Branch, Nagaon, for a sum of Rs. 4,05,269/ to the respondent. The respondent presented the Cheque to its banker, the State bank of India, Fancy Bazar Branch, Guwahati. But, the same returned dishonored vide Cheque returning memo, dated 30.08.2016, with the endorsement “Fund Insufficient”. The respondent then issued demand Notice to the petitioners to pay the Cheque amount on 03.09.2016, through his Advocate, within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. But, the petitioners failed to pay the amount in spite of receipt of notice. Then the respondent has lodged a complaint before the ld. court below under section 138 N.I. Act. The ld. Court below, then, issued process to the petitioners after taking cognizance of the offence. The petitioners have entered appearance before the ld. Court below and contested the case. The ld. Court below then explained the particulars of offence under section 138 N.I. Act to the petitioners to which the petitioners pleaded not guilty. During trial the respondent has submitted his evidence-in-affidavit. The ld. Court below then fixed the case for cross-examination of the respondent (P.W.1). But, vide impugned order dated 03.05.2018, the ld. Court below has closed the cross-examination of (P.W.1). Thereafter, on 06.08.2018, the newly engaged lawyer of the petitioners filed a petition, being petition No. 4244/2018, before the ld. Court below under section 311 Cr.P.C. for allowing the petitioners to cross-examine the P.W.1. But the ld. Court below has rejected the petition No. 4244/2018, vide impugned order dated 06.08.2019.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioners preferred this revision petition on the following grounds:-

(i) that the ld. Court below has failed to apply its judicial mind and rejected the petition No. 4244/2018 vide order dated 06.08.2019;

(ii) that without giving an opportunity to the petitioners the ld. Court below has closed the cross-examination the P.W.1, and thereby caused prejudice to the petitioners;

(iii) that the petitioners have no legally enforceable debt to the respondent and the cheque was misused by the respondent and to unfurl the truth cross-examination of the P.W.1 is very much nec