One of the questions posed in this revision is whether Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked in the case of a trial in a summons case.

2. The revision petitioner is the second accused in C.C. No.162 of 1999 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I Ernakaulam and the first accused is the company, whom he represented. The first respondent herein filed the said case alleging that the two accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs from the complainant agreeing to repay the same on demand and that in due course Ext.P1 cheque was issued to cover the debt, which on presentment in bank, was dishonoured for want of funds. The trial court accepted the complainant's case and convicted both the accused. The present petitioner was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (in default S.I. for three months). On appeal by way of Crl.S.No.329 of 2000, the learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence by reducing the substantive punishment from one year to one month, but mulcting the accused with liability for payment of compensation of Rs. 4,10,00/- If compensation was realized, Rs. 4 Lakhs out of the same would go to the complainant. It is aggrieved by this direction that the petitioner has come up before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged two points. According to him, this is a summons case governed by Section 274 of the Cr.P.C., according to which, the substance of the evidence alone has to be recorded by the Magistrate. In the instant case, C.M.P.No. 2192 of 2000 was filed before the trial court seeking to correct an alleged mistake in the evidence recorded by the court with regard to PW1. It is contended that the grant of that petition and recall of PW1 invoking power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C is unjustified. Secondly, it is argued that the grant of compensation by the learned Sessions Judge was illegal in so far as the liability to pay compensation has not been apportioned among the two accused and also because the financial capacity of the accused to pay the compensation has not been take into account.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent also, according to whom, the trial court has wide power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C and the recall of PW1 to correct an obvious error is well justified.

5. A question was posed to PW1 as to the date on which the alleged borrowal of Rs. 4 Lakhs took place. The answer was recorded as in April, 1977. That was on 5.2.2000. On 23.2.2000 C.M.P.No. 2192 of 2000 was filed wherein it was alleged by the complainant that on a perusal of the certified copy of the deposition which was issued only on 22.2.2000 it was noticed that the answer given by PW1 with regard to the date of borrowal was wrongly recorded as 1977 April, whereas the actual date given by PW1 in court was April, 1997. The prayer therefore was that evidence be re-opened. It was based on these averments that the court thought it fit to invoke its power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and to re-call and examine the witness further. In such examination made on 15.3.2000 PW1 clarified that he had mentioned the year of borrowal as 1997 even on the date of his earlier examination. In cross examination by the defense it was suggested to him that the earlier answer was with reference to the year 1977 itself and that was denied by the witness.

6. It is true that there is no specific mention in Section 274 of the Cr.P.C. directing the Court to read over to the wirnes what has been recorded by him. That does not at all absolve the Court of the liability to read over to the witness the substance of the evidence recorded by him. It is only when what is recorded is read over to the witness that he would be able to point out defects, if any, in the deposition and in that perspective whether it is a summons case or warrant case and irrespective of whether what is recorded is the verbatim reproduction of the deposition tendered b