Point of Law: Section 311 CrPC reads as power to summon material witness, or examine person present.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioner, complainant in case No. 118-3 of 2013, titled as Sumitra Devi Vs. Kapoor Chand, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’), has approached this Court against rejection of application filed by her for her reexamination, vide order dated 28.1.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anni, District Kullu, H.P. (Trial Court).

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed before me.

3. Petitioner has preferred a complaint under NI Act for dishonor of cheque issued by respondent Kapoor Chand for payment towards her salary, claiming that the said cheque was issued by respondent as Director of BHK construction Company. An affidavit in evidence, in examination-in-chief, has been filed by the petitioner and thereafter, she was subjected to cross-examination on behalf of respondent, wherein at one place she had admitted it to be correct that respondent was also an employee of the Company like her. At the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes time of her cross-examination, no liberty was prayed by her counsel to re-examine her regarding this part of statement made by her in cross-examination as in examination-in-chief she had stated that respondent was Director of the Company. However, later on an application was filed on behalf of petitioner for her re-examination by proposing filing of an affidavit in re-examination, stating therein that respondent was Chairman of the Company and he had issued the cheque in her favour on behalf of Company under reference.

4. The aforesaid application was opposed by respondent on the ground that admission made by the petitioner with respect to status of respondent during cross-examination that respondent was an employee like her, is unambiguous and clear and, therefore, there is no question of allowing re-examination of the petitioner as proposed, as it would amount to fill up the lacuna and also prolonging of proceedings.

5. The trial Court after, considering pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2013) 14 SCC 461; Jamatraj Kewalji Govani Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 (SC) 178; U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and another Vs. Fatehsinh Mohansing Chauhan, (2006) 7 SCC 529; Iddar and others Vs. Aabida and another, AIR (SC) 2007 3029 and also judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Acura Glass Tiles Enterprises V. S.S. Ray LawSuit (Del) 496 and appreciating the facts on record, arrived at the conclusion that affidavit proposed to be filed in cross-examination would amount to withdrawal of self harming admission came on record during cross-examination of the petitioner and it would amount to fill up lacuna by afterthought causing prejudice to the respondent/accused and would amount to give unfair advantage to the petitioner, and accordingly, after referring para 18 of judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India, 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 271, Trial Court dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6 SCC 110; P. Chhaganlal Daga Vs. M. Sanjay Shaw, (2003) 11 SCC 486; and Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2019) 6 SCC 203, contended that in cross-examination a fact has come on record which appears to be in conflict with the contents of examination-in-chief and in view of provisions of Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 145 of the NI Act, petitioner has a right to be re-examined on that point as clarification and truth about the said point shall be necessary for complete, final and just adjudication of the matter and, therefore, he contended that proposed re-examination of the petitioner shall not amount to filling up of lacuna by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, by referring case law relied upon by t