The court ruled that once a party closes its evidence, it cannot subsequently recall witnesses to fill gaps in their case, maintaining trial integrity.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, for setting aside and quashing of impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar whereby application filed by the complainant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness i.e. C.A. Jalandhar to prove the statement of account Ex-P5 in complaint bearing No.NACT-2347-2020 titled as ‘Andeep Agro Feeds Vs.Gurmeet Lal’ was dismissed.

2. For the bouncing of cheque bearing No.056769 dated 08.03.2020 for a sum of Rs.9,57,415/-, after completion of the legal formalities, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been instituted by the petitioner/complainant against respondent-Gurmeet Lal. Petitioner/complainant had already filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief and thereupon was cross-examined on 20.01.2023. Relevant part of the cross- examination for proper appreciation of the facts and to decide the controversy involved herein is reproduced here as under:-

“CW 1 Harbhajan Singh recalled for cross examination.

I have produced on record documents reflecting to the fact that I am the Prop. of Andeep Argo. The witness was confronted with the judicial file where no such documents is present. I have seen Ex.C5 which is the photocopy and the same is neither signed by anybody nor the same was stamped of our firm. The photocopy and electronic record produce by me alongwith my affidavit is not supported by certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. It is correct that copies of bills Mark D1 to Mark D18 are the photocopies and neither signed by anybody nor the same was stamped of our firm. It is correct that computer from which the prints of account statement and bills were taken is not being operated by me. It is correct that I have not obtained any certificate from the person who is operating the same with regard to the fact that this record is correct as per original record. The accused is working with out firm since last 2 years. We are duly maintaining our record but our business does not fall under the category of GST. The goods were supplied to accused through transport but I cannot produce any bility of any transport from which the goods were supplied to accused. I cannot produce any receiving slip duly signed by accused with regard to the receipt of the goods. I have not obtained any blank cheque from the accused at the time when I started the business with accused. Vol., cheque was given to me and the same was duly filled in. Except the cheque in question, accused never issued any cheque in my favour. I am Income Tax Assessee. I have not reflected any entry with regard to accused in my ITRs to the fact that the accused is to pay Rs.9,57,415/- to me. I do not know if on the cheque Ex.C1. The name Andeep Argo Feeds is written in different writing and the signatures of accused is in Punjabi language. Vol., accused must be knowing the same. I do not know any man by the name of Bunty from Begowal.”

3. After closing of the prosecution evidence on 05.10.2023, application was moved by the petitioner on 28.02.2024 when already proceedings had been conducted by fixing dates for leading of defence evidence by the respondent/accused. In the application dated 28.02.2024, filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling witness i.e. C.A.-Vishal Kumar, to prove the account statement (Ex.C5), already having been placed by the petitioner during his own evidence and the same has been dismissed. Learned trial Court while dismissing the application, noticed that complainant had closed his evidence on 05.11.2023 and thereupon statement under Secti