High Court of Karnataka Allows Recall of Witness Under Section 311 CrPC in NI Act Case — Demand Promissory Note and Receipt Essential for Just Decision. The court held that the Magistrate erred in dismissing the application for recall of PW-1 to produce a demand promissory note and receipt, as these documents were essential for the just decision of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 311 CrPC in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 18.5.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Puttur, in C.C.No.1944/2006, and a direction to allow the application under Section 311 CrPC to recall PW-1 and mark the demand promissory note and receipt.

The petitioner's application under Section 311 CrPC to recall PW-1 for production and marking of a demand promissory note and receipt was dismissed by the Magistrate on the grounds of delay and lack of explanation for non-production.

The Magistrate dismissed the application under Section 311 CrPC on 18.5.2011.

Whether the Magistrate was justified in dismissing the application under Section 311 CrPC on the grounds of delay and lack of explanation for non-production of documents, without considering the necessity of the documents for a just decision. Whether the demand promissory note and receipt were essential for the just decision of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The petitioner argued that the demand promissory note and receipt were essential to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, which is a prerequisite for an offence under Section 138 of the Act. The respondent opposed the application, but the specific arguments are not mentioned in the judgment.

The court held that Section 311 CrPC confers wide discretion on the court to summon or recall any witness if his evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The Magistrate erred in dismissing the application solely on the grounds of delay and lack of explanation for non-production, without considering the necessity of the documents for a just decision. The demand promissory note and receipt were essential to prove the legally enforceable debt, and their non-consideration could lead to a failure of justice.

An application filed by the petitioner under S.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), to recall PW-1 for the purpose of production and marking of a demand promissory note and receipt having been dismissed by the learned Magistrate, this petition was filed. The application having been opposed, was dismissed on the ground, (i) that the reason for non-production of the documents earlier was not given and (ii) that the application was filed belatedly. The learned Magistrate has not considered the requirement of the documents for the just decision of the case. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.5.2011 is quashed. The application filed under S.311 Cr.P.C. dated 23.7.2010 is allowed.

The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC against the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Cognizance was taken and process was issued. During trial, after the complainant (PW-1) was examined and cross-examined, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 CrPC on 23.7.2010 to recall PW-1 for production and marking of a demand promissory note and receipt. The Magistrate dismissed the application on 18.5.2011. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.3296/2011 under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka, which was allowed on 13.3.2015.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 311, 482, 200
• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138