ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order dated 15.02.2020 passed by the III Additional Small Causes Judge (SCCH-18), Bengaluru, rejecting the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. The trial is going on and the witnesses have also been examined. The accused filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking reopening of the case and issue of witness summons to witness Nos.1 to 4. The application was opposed. The learned Magistrate considering the prayer and also the objections, observed that the accused has admitted his permanent address as shown in the complaint and in case any notice and summons are issued, it will reach his address, in such circumstances the question of issuance of summons to witness Nos.1 to 3 does not arise. It is also observed that in respect to witness No.4, who being a Bank Manager, he issued endorsement in his official capacity and document had evidentiary value under Section 4 of the Bankers Evidence Act. Hence, dismissed the application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused brought to the notice of this Court the answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1. He admits the address, but he denies the signature available on Ex.P.10. The defence of the accused is that he was residing elsewhere from 2011 onwards and he was not residing in the said address and hence he wants to examine the owner of the premises in which he was residing during the relevant period. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no need to examine the witness and the Trial Court while dismissing the application has given the reason that there is an admission in the cross-examination. Hence, the question of recalling the witness does not arise. 5. Having perused the admissions and also the order impugned, the witness admits that the said address is furnished by him and the same is correct address. The dispute is with regard to whether he was residing in the said address in the particular period or not. Hence, the question of recalling the witness does not arise. 5. Having perused the admissions and also the order impugned, the witness admits that the said address is furnished by him and the same is correct address. The dispute is with regard to whether he was residing in the said address in the particular period or not. Hence, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the prayer of the petitioner to examine witness No.1. However, having taken note of the other reasons assigned by the Trial Court, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application for examining the other witnesses. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order, dated 15.02.2020, is set aside insofar as witness No.1 is concerned. (iii) The petitioner/accused is permitted to examine witness No.1. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the matter is listed on 15.02.2021. Hence, the petitioner/accused is permitted to examine witness No.1 on 15.02.2021 and if not possible on 15.02.2021, within one week, without seeking further adjournment.