Judgment Heard. Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by mutual consent of parties. 2. The petitioner is a complainant, who has lodged complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being S.C.C. No.2/2008 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda against the respondent No.2/ accused. The petitioner tendered affidavit dated 22.9.2009 (Exhibit 26) as her examination-in-chief; and before her cross-examination began, had moved an application dated 5.12.2009 (Exhibit 28) seeking permission to tender additional affidavit as and by way of further examination-in-chief. This application was allowed on merits vide order dated 31.8.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda. Order dated 31.8.2010 was challenged by the respondent No.2 by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.133/2010 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the record, allowed the said Criminal Revision Application and proceeded to quash the order dated 31.8.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda in S.C.C. No.2/2008 on 1.3.2011. 3. With reference to Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad observed thus :- "9. At this stage, Chapter X of the Indian Evidence Act, needs to be referred in which there is specific Section 138, it specifically mandates that the witnesses shall be first examination-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined and then (if party calling him so desires) re-examined." "10. It is to be noted that as regards issue in the case before the lower Court is concerned, the burden is obviously upon the prosecution. The lower Court definitely was wrong in adverting to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the case and circumstances of the case were at pre-matured stage, that is to say that the respondent No.2 yet to be cross-examined, it can not be allowed to add examination-in-chief, especially when the case was posted for cross-examination of the respondent No.2 by the applicant. Thus the procedure adopted by the lower Court is certainly wrong keeping in view of provision of Section 138 of Indian Evidence Act. As has been pointed out earlier considering the principles laid down in Section 311 at this stage, would be certainly going astray in the matter. Thus the procedure adopted by the lower Court is certainly wrong keeping in view of provision of Section 138 of Indian Evidence Act. As has been pointed out earlier considering the principles laid down in Section 311 at this stage, would be certainly going astray in the matter. Thus, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant are correct. However, the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 can not be justified in any manner. Hence the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and point No.2 accordingly.. . . . " It is this reasoning and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad which is being assailed in the present petition. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner took this Court through the application (Exhibit 28), say and the order below it in S.C.C. No.2/2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda on 31.8.2010, and pointed out that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had allowed this application to bring on record the true facts which in no way would prejudice the accused, he being armed with the tool of cross-examination to test the veracity of the facts brought on record by way of additional affidavit in-chief. As regards Section 311 of the Code he pointed out from the text of the said provision that the trial Court could resort to this provision at any stage of the trial or other proceedings in order to examine or recall or re-examine any person if the evidence of such person appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. In his view, the reasoning adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad is erroneous. 5. Learned Advocate for the contesting respondent No.2 submitted that the complainant was making effort to introduce certain facts inconsistent with her earlier affidavit in-chief under the garb of clerical mistake and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad had made no mistake in striking down the order dated 31.8.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda. According to him, the stage to invoke Section 311 had not occasioned, and as such the learned Magistrate had made an error in passing the order dated 31.8.2010. 6. According to him, the stage to invoke Section 311 had not occasioned, and as such the learned Magistrate had made an error in passing the order dated 31.8.2010. 6. Perusal of the order dated 31.8.2010 and the impugned judgment and order dated 1.3.2011 raises a question as to how learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad made comment on the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda regarding the recourse taken to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Be that as it may, the reading of Section 311 of the Code clearly reveals that it could be invoked by any Court at any stage of trial or other proceedings if it appears to its mind that examination, recalling and re-examination of any person is essential to the just decision of the case. In the instant case, the cross-examination of the principal witness i.e. the complainant had not started and it could be said that the adversary in the said case had not opened his cards which would have made him vulnerable as a result of the shifting stands of the complainant. Assuming that the complainant was to add additional inconsistent facts in his further evidence before his cross-examination, it always remained open for the accused to test the veracity of the composite evidence of the complainant arising out of his initial affidavit in-chief and additional affidavit in-chief. Ultimately, the trial is search of true facts and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda had rightly observed that in given circumstances when the cross-examination had not started the additional examination-in-chief on affidavit was justifiable to bring on record the true facts. 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, it appears, was overtaken by regimen of the provision of Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, which merely spells out the order of examinations i.e. the sequence of examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination, and consequently, fell in error in appreciating the reasoning adopted by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda in proper perspective. 8. In the result, this petition deserves to be made absolute. Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Revision Petition No.133/2010 on 1.3.2011 is quashed. Order dated 31.8.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda below application (Exhibit 28) in S.C.C. No.2/2008 is restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.