The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the importance of summoning or recalling witnesses to ensure a just decision and prevent miscarriage of justice.

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 28.08.2009 (P1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and the order dated 04.07.2007 (P4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide which, the application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against respondent, alleging therein, that respondent along with her husband Shri Charanjit Singh availed hire purchase facility amounting to Rs. 66,600/- as she was working as Clerk from the petitioner company. Thereafter, the petitioner led evidence and in this regard Ltd. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan (Retd.) - Managing Director of the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW3. During cross examination, Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan (retd.) - Managing Director was directed to place on record certain document. As such, the Managing Director brought the documents and placed the same on record. But the petitioner did not cross examine the said Managing Director on the said documents. Accordingly, the petitioner for the purpose of proving the said documents filed an application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code for recalling the witness namely Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan (Retd.) before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. However, the JMIC, dismissed the aforesaid application on the ground that if the same is allowed for re-examination of witness, namely, Iqbal Singh Chauhan, then it will re-open the whole case and will prolong the case. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 04.07.2007 dismissing the application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code, filed a revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. But the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated 28.08.2009.

3. Hence, the present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders.

4. While praying for quashing of the impugned orders with further prayer to allow the petitioner to recall the witness, namely, Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan (Retd.) to prove the said documents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these documents were essentially to be proved on the record as the same will clear the clouds and prove there were two different transactions with respondent i.e Kulwinder Kaur and No Due Certificate got produced on the record by respondent pertains to second transactions i.e Sundary Advance. Further, by recalling the witnesses, namely, Lt. Col. Iqbal Singh Chauhan, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent and that by recalling of the witness for the purpose of proving the said documents was very necessary as the said evidence would rather help the trial Court to reach at the just conclusion of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, vehemently opposed the same and submitted that second revision under the garb of section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable and that the application has been filed only to fill in a lacuna and further, the same cannot be allowed to move at a belated stage when the same prayer under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code was moved which had been earlier declined vide orders dated 27.01.2005 and 20.01.2006 by the trial Court.

6. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hanuman Ram v. The State of Rajasthan and others, reported as 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 823 to argue that once the witness was examined in chief and cross examined fully, such witness should not be recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he had already given before the Court even though that witness had given an inconsistent statement before any other Court or forum subsequently.

7. Heard.

8. It is not disputed that the Managing Director - Lt. Co