JUDGMENT 1. Heard. Perused. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by mutual consent. 3. Order dated 02-03-2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4 Shrirampur below the application Exhibit 51 in S.T.C. No. 720/2005 is assailed in the present petition. 4. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1872, against the petitioner, thereby alleging that the petitioner failed and neglected to make payment of Rs. 1,72,300/- due to him upon dishonour of cheque for the said amount issued by the petitioner towards payment of the price of the goods purchased from time to time. This complaint came to be registered as S.T.C. No. 720/2005 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shrirampur. The respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit dated 06-12-2006 (Exhibit 14) as his examination in chief. He was cross-examined and after his cross-examination was over, he moved an application (Exhibit 51) along with additional affidavit in chief for permission to adduce additional evidence. 5. In his application (Exhibit 51) he contended that certain things were left over due to inadvertence and it is necessary to adduce additional evidence in that regard. He further contended that by adducing the additional evidence he was not making out any new case before the Court. This application was resisted by the petitioner with the say dated dated 24-08-2009. The petitioner in his reply countered that the application made was misconceived in law and the application did not make reference to any of the contents of the additional affidavit-in-reply and there was no reference to keeping of ledger and sending of reply to the notice by the accused in the complaint. The petitioner further contended that the additional evidence was being adduced to save the losing case. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur after hearing the parties and on considering the evidence already adduced vis-à-vis the complaint and the law on the subject held that the additional evidence of the complainant was essential for just decision of the case and allowed the application (Exhibit 51). 6. Learned Advocate Shri R.R. Karpe for the petitioner argued that the respondent No. 2/ complainant by adducing additional evidence was trying to fill lacuna in prosecution case after the petitioner/ accused had opened his cards on completion of cross-examination of the complainant. 6. Learned Advocate Shri R.R. Karpe for the petitioner argued that the respondent No. 2/ complainant by adducing additional evidence was trying to fill lacuna in prosecution case after the petitioner/ accused had opened his cards on completion of cross-examination of the complainant. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in FatesinhMohansinh Chauhan’s Case [U.T. of Dadra & Haveli & Anr Vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan; 2006(2) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 613)] 7. Learned Advocate Shri P.P. Khandale Patil for the respondent No. 2 pointed out from the complaint and the affidavit in chief (Exhibit 14) that there has been business dealings between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in respect of poultry feed and medicines from time to time, and the petitioner had been purchasing the said poultry feed and medicines on credit, and the cheque in question was handed over towards repayment of the dues of the petitioner in respect of the price of goods sold on credit. Referring to his cross-examination he further pointed out that the respondent No. 2 had referred to the ledger book, which was record of the dealings between him and the petitioner. In his view, the additional evidence in respect of the said ledger book and the reply given by the accused to the notice of demand sent by the respondent No. 2 would help the trial Court to arrive at just decision in the case. It is for this reason he submitted that learned trial Court had rightly pass the impugned order. 8. Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as under:- “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. 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 summoned as a witness, or. recall and re- examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” Opening words of this provision clearly signify that the power conferred there under can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the proceedings, may be before cross-examination of the witness or after. The trial Court, however, remains under obligation to satisfy itself whether the evidence sought to be adduced by examining or recalling or re-examining appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. Object of any trial is to find out truth. Impliedly therefore “just decision in the case” means fulfillment of this objective. The Hon’ble Apex Court in FatesinhMohansinh Chauhan’s Case (Supra) therefore held that “the exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with object of finding out truth or obtaining proper proof of such facts which lead to just and correct decision of case, this being primary duty of the Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that calling witness or re-examining witness for finding out truth in order to enable Court to arrive at just decision of case cannot be dubbed as filing lacuna in prosecution case “unless facts and circumstances of case make it apparent that exercise of power by Court would result in causing serious prejudice to accused resulting in miscarriage of justice”’. 9. A ledger book, which is a record of the dealings between the parties, and reply of the accused to the demand notice obviously afford proper proof of the facts asserted in the complaint. These documents may prejudice the cause of the petitioner/ accused to the extent of bringing in question the merit of the defense but this prejudice cannot be said to be one which would result in miscarriage of justice for the reason that it affords fair opportunity to both the contending parties to place before the Court all such relevant facts having bearing on matter in issue both by examination chief/ cross-examination. Opportunity afforded is fair for the reason that it does not allow making of new case or something which is inherently repugnant to the case already made out. It is only then that truth can be seen clearly and the justice done. 10. Needless to state that the petitioner has right to cross-examine the respondent No. 2 in respect of the additional evidence tendered and further to tender his own evidence in defense in accordance with law. 11. In this view of the matter, the findings of the learned trial Court that the said additional evidence was essential for just decision of the case cannot be faulted Criminal Writ Petition No. 277/2010 is, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged. 11. In this view of the matter, the findings of the learned trial Court that the said additional evidence was essential for just decision of the case cannot be faulted Criminal Writ Petition No. 277/2010 is, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged. Criminal Writ Petition No. 277/2010 stands disposed off accordingly.