The legal right of the accused to further cross-examine the complainant and witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be upheld to ensure a fair trial.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed for quashing of the Order dated 04.08.2018(Annexure P-4); passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class/SAS Nagar(Mohali); in Comp.No.NIA-368-17 dated 03.05.2017 under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 for recalling of the Complainant(CW-1) and additional witness Bhupinder Singh(CW-2) for their furthers cross-examination has been rejected.

2. Present case emanates from the complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the respondent against the petitioner. The trial of the case was at the stage of evidences. At the initial stage of the trial, the Trial Court had recorded the statement of the Complainant as CW-1 at the pre-summoning stage. Thereafter, on the basis of the material brought on record, the petitioner was summoned. After appearing before the Trial Court, the petitioner had cross-examined the Complainant to rebut his claim. Thereafter the complainant/respondent moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C , 1973praying for examination of Bhupinder Singh Chakal as CW-2. The Complainant had thought fit to examine this Bhupinder Singh(CW-2) despite that his name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses mentioned with the Complaint. That application was allowed by the Trial Court. Resultantly, Bhupinder Singh (CW-2) was examined by Complainant as additional witness and cross-examined by the petitioner on 20.04.2018. On an application moved by the petitioner, copy of the examination and cross-examination of Bhupinder Singh(CW-2) was supplied to the petitioner. The case was adjourned for remaining evidence of the complainant for 09.05.2018. On 09.05.2018, the respondent had not produced any witness. Therefore, the evidence of the respondent/complainant was closed on his statement. The case was adjourned for recording of the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973

3. On 14.05.2018 the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded. One witness DW-1 Mangat Singh was also examined by the petitioner. The case was adjourned to 01.06.2018. At this stage the petitioner also examined Mandeep Singh(DW-2). However, then the complainant/respondent again moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C , 1973for examining one more witness from the bank, in view of the statement made by DW-2 Mandeep Singh. That application of complainant/respondent was allowed and CW-3(PW-3)Satwinder Singh was examined as still additional witness. The next Order of the Trial Court also shows that on 06.06.2008 no other PW was present, therefore, the case was adjourned for 10.07.2018 for recording of additional statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 At this stage, the application is moved by the petitioner for recalling of Complainant(CW-1) and the above said Bhupinder Singh(CW-2) for further cross-examination. This application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 04.08.2018. It is this Order which is being impugned in the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since Bhupinder Singh(CW-2) was summoned as additional witness by allowing the application filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C;, 1973 though he was not named as a witness at the time of filing of the complaint; and Bhupinder Singh has disclosed certain facts, therefore, the petitioner would require to further cross-examine the complainant also; with reference to the facts which have surfaced and have become relevant after examination of Bhupinder Singh(CW-2). It is contended that after examination of Bhupinder Singh(CW-2), the petitioner has not been granted any opportunity to further cross examine the complainant. It is further contended that even at the initial stage, as it transpires; later on, some relevant questions were not put up by his earlier counsel. Therefore, f