A court may allow a recall of witnesses for limited cross-examination in the interest of justice if material evidence relevant to the case surfaces, even post-completion of witness examinations.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS ’) for quashment of the order dated 21.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.7143 of 2023 in CCNI No.14251 of 2022 on the file of the VIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard Mr. Srikanth Chintala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), seeking to recall PW-2 for the purpose of further cross-examination. Upon considering the materials on record, the trial Court passed the impugned order, observing that the reason advanced by the petitioner that, he had since obtained access to significant material facts, was unconvincing. The Court noted that the cross-examination of PW-2 had already been completed on 02.08.2023 and concluded that no valid justification exist to warrant the recall of PW-2 for further cross-examination and dismissed the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the examination of the witness is crucial in order to rebut the statutory presumption arising under the Negotiable Instruments Act . It is contended that the complainant alleges the advancement of a loan to the petitioner in the year 2014; however, the petitioner seeks to rely on the resolutions of the Board of the complainant company in conjunction with the reports filed by the complainant company before the registrar of companies, which purportedly do not reflect any such loan transaction. The purpose of recalling the witness, therefore, is to demonstrate the falsity of the complainant’s allegations and to establish that the cheques in question were actually issued in relation to a different transaction purely as security, have been improperly invoked and misused in the present complaint.

5. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 2.

6. I have carefully perused the materials available on record and have duly considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Upon consideration of the materials on record, it is evident that the present petition seeking recall of PW-2 has been filed at a belated stage, specifically at the conclusion of the examination of witnesses and pending examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. Furthermore, the petitioner has admitted that the cheques, although issued as security, have indeed been pressed into service by the complainant. This admission supports the conclusion that the cheques were duly issued and signed by the petitioner.

8. Nonetheless, it is open to the petitioner to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act either by the materials on the record or by adducing evidence. It is also an undisputed fact, as recorded by the trial Court, that the cross-examination of PW-2 was concluded in August 2023, and that the present application for recall has been filed significantly thereafter.

9. However, in light of the petitioner’s submission that certain material aspects, particularly the contents of the complainant company’s board resolutions (Exhibits P-8 and P-9) and the financial reports submitted to the Registrar of Companies, may assist in substantiating the petitioner’s defence and in rebutting the statutory presumption, this Court is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, a limited opportunity ought to be granted