Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Complainant (respondent herein) filed a criminal complaint case against two named accused, including the present applicant, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The complainant filed affidavit alongwith the documents in support of his complaint. A cheque given by the accused to the complainant was dishonoured by the bank due to ‘insufficiency of funds’. After having gone through the documentary evidence etc., the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Dehradun found a prima facie case against the accused and he was summoned to face the trial, vide order dated 24.10.2009. In the course of evidence, complainant entered into the witness-box to support the contents of his complaint filed by him. He was cross-examined by learned counsel for the accused on 22.04.2010. The evidence of PW1 was closed. 2. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was thereafter moved on behalf of the accused on 07.05.2010 for granting him permission to further cross-examine PW1. Such an application was objected to by the complainant. Written objections were filed on his behalf. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Dehradun dismissed the said application (paper no.34 ka), vide order dated 26.05.2010. 3. Aggrieved against the same, a criminal revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 4th, Dehradun. Still aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused-applicant. 4. The ground taken up by the accused (applicant herein) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was that he was in Dehradun jail when PW1 (complainant) was examined. Subsequent thereto, on 30.04.2010 accused engaged a new lawyer, who found that certain important questions were not asked in the cross-examination of PW1. It was, therefore, prayed that PW1 be called for further cross-examination. In the written objection, complainant wrote that the cross-examination of the complainant was done in the presence of accused and, therefore, the accused cannot say that some other questions are required to be asked in his cross-examination. The accused was already granted proper opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. It was, therefore, prayed that PW1 be called for further cross-examination. In the written objection, complainant wrote that the cross-examination of the complainant was done in the presence of accused and, therefore, the accused cannot say that some other questions are required to be asked in his cross-examination. The accused was already granted proper opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. Accused took two adjournments and thereafter PW1 was cross-examined, to the satisfaction of accused, who having failed to disprove the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Act, found no other way and therefore tactically and strategically moved such application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate held that there was no provision for recalling any witness, in case the accused changes his counsel. The prosecution evidence was closed and complaint under Section 138 of the Act was fixed for statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned trial court cited and discussed various rulings to come to a conclusion that Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to fill up the lacuna or to fill up the void. There was no occasion to call any witness again and again, if accused goes on changing his counsel. 6. There is no occasion to interfere in the judgment passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The evidence of the complainant, in the instant case, was recorded in the presence of accused, who came from jail. His counsel cross-examined PW1 in his presence. Subsequent thereto, he changed his counsel, who found that certain important questions were also required to be asked in the cross-examination of PW1, which is hardly a ground for moving application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is true that the Court is empowered to summon any person as a witness at any stage of enquiry or trial or other proceedings either on his own motion, or on the motion of prosecution or defence, but such exercise or power for recalling the witness should be exercised only if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The trial court, in the instant case, applied it’s mind and came to the conclusion that once PW1 was examined and cross-examined in the presence of accused/his counsel, there was no occasion to call him for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Learned trial court has appropriately dealt with such an application, in the light of objections raised by the complainant. Such power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised on flimsy grounds, or at the discretion of any party, to prolong the proceedings of any case. This court is unable to persuade itself to hold otherwise. 7. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order, whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected. This Court is unable take a view differently from what was taken by the trial court, criminal revision against which order was rejected on the ground of non-maintainability. 8. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. Needless to say that accused-applicant has still option to adduce oral as well documentary evidence when his turn comes after recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He can avail of such an option at an opportune moment.