ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.633 of 2020 on the file of the VII Special Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam, being aggrieved by the order, dated 27.05.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2042 of 2022, whereby the petition filed by 2nd respondent/complainant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for reopening of his evidence, which was closed on 31.3.2022, was allowed, on condition.

2. The respondent No.2 herein preferred complaint under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 against the petitioner herein/accused in C.C.No.633 of 2020 and when the said case was coming up for trial, the complainant failed to produce his evidence and he did not attend the Court for a few adjournments and thereby on 31.3.2022, the Court below closed his side evidence. Then 2nd respondent herein/complainant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to reopen the case. The petitioner/accused filed her counter and opposed the said petition. The Court below, after hearing both sides, passed the impugned order and allowed the said petition on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the petitioner herein/ accused with a direction to 2nd respondent/ complainant to produce his evidence by next date else the petition would stand dismissed.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the impugned order is unsustainable and that 2nd respondent herein/ complainant had taken several adjournments to adduce his evidence and that earlier though time was granted on payment of costs, the said condition was not complied with, by 2nd respondent herein/complainant and that the reason given for the absence of 2nd respondent herein/complainant before the Court below on 31.3.2022 when his evidence was closed that his advocate met with an accident and that he went to assist him etc., are all false and that only to drag on the case the said petition was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and that the impugned order of the learned trial Court may be set aside.

4. Though notice was sent to 2nd respondent, there is no representation on his behalf.

5. Perused the record.

6. The question that falls for determination is whether there is sufficient cause for the absence of 2nd respondent herein and his counsel before the Court below on the date of closure of his side evidence. 7. Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. reads thus:

“Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summed as a witness or recall andreexamine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and respondent-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

The aforesaid provision consists of two parts viz.

(1) giving discretion to the court to examine the witness at any stage; and (2) the mandatory portion which compels a court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. There cannot be any dispute that the power under Section 311 CrPC is a vast one. This power can be exercised at any stage of the trial. Such a power should be exercised provided the evidence which may be tendered by a witness is germane to the issue involved, or if proper evidence is not adduced or relevant material is not brought on record due to any inadvertence. It hardly needs to be emphasized that power under Section 311 CrPC should be exercised for the just decision of the case. Whether to exercise the power or not, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

8. As seen from the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by 2nd respondent herein, it is clear that 2nd respondent herein/complainant stated the reason for his absence on 31.3.2022, on which day, the case was posted for adducing evidence on behalf of complainant, that his counsel had met with an accident, and on such infor