The Court has the discretion to summon witnesses or recall and re-examine any person if their evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case, as per Section 311 Cr.P.C. This power must be exercised judiciously, with the objective of finding out the truth and obtaining proper proof for a just decision.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot whereby the application moved by the complainantpetitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the pleadings are that the respondent-accused had family relations with the petitionercomplainant. On account of her dire need, the respondent-accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- from the petitioner-complainant as a friendly loan and agreed to return the same within two/three months. For the said purpose, an account payee cheque bearing No.716001 dated 26.06.2018 amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- drawn upon UCO Bank, Pathankot, was issued in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner-complainant presented the aforesaid cheque and the same came to be dishonoured with the remarks 'Account Blocked' vide memo dated 28.06.2018. A copy of the memo is attached as Annexure P-3 to the petition. Notice was served upon the respondent-accused who refused to receive the same and also failed to make the payment of the cheque amount. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint dated 31.07.2018 and a copy of the same is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.

Pursuant to the filing of the complaint, the respondent-accused came to be summoned to face Trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Vide order dated 09.01.2020, the petitioner-complainant closed his evidence and on 21.01.2020, the statement of the accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the recording of the statement, the case was fixed for defence evidence but on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, the case was adjourned from time to time.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner-complainant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the Manager of UCO Bank, Pathankot alongwith the statement of account of the respondent-accused bearing account No.02780110030392. It was the case of the petitionercomplainant that the cheque had been returned by the bank of the accused vide return memo with the reasons 55 Account block (situation covered in 20-25)'. The said reason did not clarify the actual cause of the blocking of the accoun, therefore, he sought a clarification by bringing on record the accounts statement of the accused-respondent so that the Court could examine as to whether there were sufficient funds in the bank account of the accused respondent on the date when the cheque was dishonoured and what was the actual cause of the bank account of the accused-respondent being blocked. The copy of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 03.11.2021 is attached as Annexure P-4 to the petition.

The respondent-accused filed a response to the application contending that the issue regarding the sufficiency of funds in the account of the accused-respondent had been raised for the first time through the application. No such fact had been mentioned earlier either in the complaint or in the preliminary evidence of the complainant-petitioner. The name of the Bank Manager sought to be examined to produce the statement of accounts of the respondent-accused had not been mentioned in the application. In fact, the application was merely an after thought to cover up the lacuna left in the legal notice/complaint and the evidence led by the complainant-petitioner after the complainant's evidence had been closed. Since the defence of the accused-respondent was likely to be affected, the application was liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the respective pleadings of the parties as also the arguments raised, the said application came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.02.2022 and the relevant extract of the same is reproduced below:-

'It has been rightly argued by learned defence counsel that even prior to the date of issuance of legal notice, the complainant was well aware about the r