ORDER

10.12.2024 Heard Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C., praying for the quashing of the impugned Order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions/Special Judge, Calchar, Silchar, in Criminal Revision No. 117/2023, affirming the impugned Order dated 20.06.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, in N.I. Case No. 151/2020.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Choudhury, that after the closure of evidence of the P.Ws, the learned Trial Court recorded the statement of the present petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. After the recording of the petitioner's statement, a petition was filed by respondent No. 2/complainant under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to recall the witnesses for the purpose of producing a document that came to light during the cross-examination of the complainant's evidence. He further submitted that while adducing evidence, the complainant had already exhibited Exhibits 6 and 6(1), i.e. the ledger account of goods supplied on credit to the petitioner by the complainant, i.e., M/s J.C. Business Pvt. Ltd. However, during his cross- examination, the complainant stated, “Our ledger is maintained in a bound register. I have not yet submitted the original ledger register in this case”. Only after the complainant made this statement, the petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed, seeking the production of the document and to recall of the complainant's witnesses, when the case was at the stage of defence evidence.

4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., it is not provided that the Court has the power to allow the prosecution/complainant to produce a document after the witnesses have been examined. Although the Court is empowered to summon or re- examine witnesses at any stage before the pronouncement of the judgment, if it appears to the Court to be essential for a just decision of the case by getting at the truth through all lawful means. But, the petition in this case was filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. solely to fill the lacuna and exhibit the ledger register. From the cross-examination of the P.Ws, it is clear that the register had not been furnished before the Court, nor it had exhibited. However, without considering this aspect, the learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court, which suffers from inherent and fundamental defects.

5. In addition to his submission, he relies on the decision passed by this Court in the case of Gopal Jhunjhunwala vs. Shuvrateja Chaudhury & Anr., reported in 2008 (1) GLT 1093, wherein, the prayer for the production of the document by complying with the provisions under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected. In this regard, he relied on the paragraph 14 of the said judgment which read as under;

“14. The Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, as reported in AIR 1999 SC 2292 held that reexamination of prosecution witnesses cannot be permitted merely for filling up lacuna in prosecution evidence and a lacuna in prosecution is not to be equated with the fall out of an oversight committed by a Public Prosecutor during trial, either in producing the relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. It would be beneficial to quote Para-7 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the said case:

7. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an over sight in the