Procedural law aids justice; court may summon evidence at any stage for fair trial.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2025)

The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 2/2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi (Trial Court) which has been filed against the respondents 2 and 3 alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (in short, 'The Act').

2. The petitioner submits that, after the questioning of the accused persons under Section 313(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner filed CMP No. 574/2024 to summon the Branch Manager of his Bank, Bank of Baroda, Wellington Island Branch, to produce the account statements for the period from 2017 to 2019 and to issue summons to the State Tax Officer to produce the GST return details for the above mentioned period. The application was opposed by the respondents 2 and 3. By Annexure-VI order, the Trial Court has dismissed the said application. Annexure-VI order is ex-facie illegal and erroneous.

Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondents

2 and 3.

4. The petitioner had filed Annexure-III complaint alleging that respondents 2 and 3 had committed the offence under Section 138 of the Act. It is after the petitioner’s evidence was closed and the complaint was posted for examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., that the petitioner had filed Annexure-IV petition, to re-open the evidence and recall PW1 and issue summons to the Manager of his bank and also the State Tax Officer to produce the account details and GST details in order to clarify certain aspects that were asked in the petitioner's cross examination. The application was opposed by respondents 2 and 3, on the ground that the attempt was to fill up the lacuna brought out in the cross examination. By the impugned Annexure-VI order, the Trial Court, on the finding that the petitioner had not specifically stated the purpose for which the witnesses are to be summoned and the documents are to be produced, and further that respondents 2 and 3 have clearly mentioned in their reply notice their defence, held that there is no bona fides in the application and, consequently, dismissed the application.

5. The powers of a Court under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is broad and wide. The said provision permits the courts at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined.

6. The principal finding of the Trial Court in the impugned order is that, there is no specific reason mentioned in the application, which I find to be wrong, because the petitioner has specifically mentioned in Annexure-IV petition that it is to prove the transactions in question that the petitioner wants to summon the bank account transaction details and the GST details to prove their case, as the respondents 2 and 3 have disputed the transactions during the petitioner's cross examination. Therefore, I am satisfied that the abovesaid documents are germane for the proper and just decision of the case.

7. It is well settled that procedural law is a handmaid of justice. It is also trite that a fair trial and equal opportunity are the cornerstone of the criminal justice delivery system. Nonetheless, I find that there was some laches on the part of the petitioner in not filing the list of witnesses at the appropriate stage. However, the said laches can be mitigated by compensating respondents

2 and 3, by imposing a reasonable cost on the petitioner.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the