ORDER 1. Pursuant to order dated 11.2.2021, the petitioners have placed on record the copy of the orders dated 7.11.2019, 5.12.2019, 29.1.2020 and 18.2.2020 in CC No. 471089/2016. 2. It appears that there is a typographical error in the order dated 11.2.2021 directing to the effect that the copy of order dated 19.10.2020 mentioned in order dated 19.12.2020 of the learned trial Court be placed on record in as much as the copy of the order dated 19.10.2020 was already on record at page 26 and the order that was requisite to be filed in terms of the mentioning thereof in order dated 19.12.2020 of the learned Trial Court was the order dated 18.2.2020, a copy of which has been placed on record now on behalf of the petitioner. The mention of the aspect that " it is considered essential that the copy of the order dated 19.10.2020 mentioned therein ", is directed to be rectified in terms of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 to the effect " it is considered essential that a copy of the order dated 18.2.2020 be placed on record ". 3. Submissions have been made on behalf of either side. 4. The petitioners vide the present petition have sought the setting aside of the orders dated 19.10.2020 and 19.12.2020 of the learned trial Court in CC No. 471089/2016 and seek further that the petitioners be allowed to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses on his re-examination and that the petitioners be allowed to have their statements recorded further under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and the examination thus of the petitioners in relation thereto with a further prayer made on behalf of the petitioners under Section 311 read with Section 315 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 that they be allowed to lead defence evidence in the matter. 5. The prayers that have been made by the petitioners are vehemently opposed on behalf of the respondent. 6. A bare perusal of the record indicates that vide order dated 11.9.2020 of this Court in Crl.M.C. No. 1795/2020, the prayers made by the present petitioners as petitioners therein to the effect: i. setting aside/quashing of the orders dated 11.04.2019 and 19.02.2019 passed by learned MM, South District, Saket District Court in complaint bearing CC No.471520/2016 in the case titled as M/s Aditya Aluminium vs. M/s Continental Metalloid Pvt. Ltd. ; ii. Allow the application of the petitioners moved under section 311 Cr.P.C. and grant opportunity to the petitioners to cross examine the complainant's witness in CC No.471520/2016 in the case titled as M/s Aditya Aluminium vs. M/s Continental Metalloid Pvt. Ltd. ", were disposed of with permission having been granted to the petitioners as a final opportunity to cross-examine the complainant/respondent through physical hearing/virtual hearing mode on depositing a cost of Rs.50,000/-. 7. On behalf of the respondent reliance is placed on the observations in paragraph 8 of this order which reads to the effect: "8. In view of above, I find no ground to allow the present petition, however, since the complainant/respondent is partly cross-examined, in the interest of justice, I hereby grant final opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the complainant/respondent through physical hearing/virtual hearing mode on depositing a cost of Rs.50,000/-." 8. The impugned orders dated 19.10.2021 of the learned trial Court declined the prayer that was made on behalf of the applicant seeking that he be relegated back to the stage of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in view of further cross-examination/re-examination of CW-1 with it having been observed to the effect that statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 had already been recorded and that the specific directions of this Court were to allow the accused to cross-examine the complainant and the matter was thus directed to be listed at the stage where it was pending for the final arguments. 9. In reply to a specific Court query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what are the further incriminating evidences that have been brought forth allegedly through the cross-examination conducted of the complainant witness in terms of the order of this Court in Crl.M.C. No. 1795/2020, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the testimony of the complainant recorded as CW-1 on 6.10.2020 to the effect: "At this stage para 3 of CW1/A is put to the witness. It is correct that the exact word "meeting" is not mentioned in the paragraph but it is stated that the accused approached the complainant requesting the loan from the complainant. It is correct that the exact word "meeting" is not mentioned in the paragraph but it is stated that the accused approached the complainant requesting the loan from the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that no such meeting ever happened or the accused persons ever approached the complainant for any loan.", with a further submission having been made on behalf of the petitioner that the re-examination conducted of the complainant by the learned counsel for the complainant on 19.10.2020 with the queries put to the effect: Q. Can you please tell if the PDCs as stated by you during your cross-examination dated 06.10.2020 in para Four, recorded at 02.00 pm, are the same which are subject matter of the present complaint? And the response thereto A. No". And further response of the complainant to the effect: "The PDCs mentioned in para Four were taken back by the accused in December 2015 and the cheques in question were issued by the accused in mid of December 2015, which were to be deposited in the month of January, February 2016." are the aspects which were not delineated in the examination-in-chief of the complainant that had been conducted previously. 10. Reliance is sought to be placed on behalf of the respondent by the learned counsel for the respondent on the provisions of Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads to the effect: "138. Order of examinations .-Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Order of examinations .-Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Direction of re-examination .-The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter." with it thus having been submitted on behalf of the respondent that as per Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there can be no further cross-examination allowed to be conducted by the petitioner on the re-examination that had been done of the complainant by the learned counsel for the complainant, in as much as the same, if required, could have been sought to have been done by the petitioner on the date of examination by making a request to the learned trial Court at that stage as is specified through the statute on directions for re-examination to the extent that a prayer is made in the present petition seeking further cross-examination of the respondent's witness on his re-examination, it is essential to observe that the order dated 19.12.2020 of the learned trial Court which is also impugned by the petitioner, makes it expressly clear to the effect that the request for further cross-examination and re-examination was not made on the date 19.10.2020 which is sought to be refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitting to the effect that the same was in fact made. It is essential to observe that in terms of Section 114 (Illustration (e)) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,the Court would presume that all judicial and official acts have been done in accordance with law in view of the proceedings dated 19.10.2020 and 19.12.2020 of the learned trial Court, and the provisions of the directions for re-examination in terms of Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to the extent that the prayer is made by the petitioner seeking a further cross-examination of the respondent's witness on his re-examination that was conducted on the date 19.10.2020 cannot be allowed, the prayer clause `B' of the petition is thus declined. 11. 11. However, as regards the prayer clause `C' made by the petitioner seeking a further examination of the petitioner in terms of Section 113 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in relation to the cross-examination conducted of the complainant on the date 6.10.2020 and on the date 19.10.2020 qua the statements made as already depicted hereinabove, i.e. "Dated 6.10.2020 At this stage para 3 of CW1/A is put to the witness. It is correct that the exact word "meeting" is not mentioned in the paragraph but it is stated that the accused approached the complainant requesting the loan from the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that no such meeting ever happened or the accused persons ever approached the complainant for any loan.", .......*........*........*........*.......*.......* Dated 19.10.2020 Q. Can you please tell if the PDCs as stated by you during your cross-examination dated 06.10.2020 in para Four, recorded at 02.00 pm, are the same which are subject matter of the present complaint? A. No The PDCs mentioned in para Four were taken back by the accused in December 2015 and the cheques in question were issued by the accused in mid of December 2015, which were to be deposited in the month of January, February 2016." it is essential that the petitioner is granted an opportunity to put forth his submission and response to the alleged incriminating evidence led by the complainant in relation thereto. Thus qua these aspects detailed hereinabove as recorded in the testimony of the complainant "Dated 6.10.2020 At this stage para 3 of CW1/A is put to the witness. It is correct that the exact word "meeting" is not mentioned in the paragraph but it is stated that the accused approached the complainant requesting the loan from the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that no such meeting ever happened or the accused persons ever approached the complainant for any loan.", .......*........*........*........*.......*.......* Dated 19.10.2020 Q. Can you please tell if the PDCs as stated by you during your cross-examination dated 06.10.2020 in para Four, recorded at 02.00 pm, are the same which are subject matter of the present complaint? It is wrong to suggest that no such meeting ever happened or the accused persons ever approached the complainant for any loan.", .......*........*........*........*.......*.......* Dated 19.10.2020 Q. Can you please tell if the PDCs as stated by you during your cross-examination dated 06.10.2020 in para Four, recorded at 02.00 pm, are the same which are subject matter of the present complaint? A. No The PDCs mentioned in para Four were taken back by the accused in December 2015 and the cheques in question were issued by the accused in mid of December 2015, which were to be deposited in the month of January, February 2016.", the learned trial Court has essentially to grant an opportunity for examination of the petitioner in terms of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in accordance with law which the learned Trial Court shall thus grant to the petitioner for the next date of hearing. 12. As regards the prayer that the petitioner has made seeking thus to be allowed to lead evidence in defence, in as much as rightly contended on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioners having thus been relegated back to the stage of the trial in terms of the order of this Court dated 11.9.2020 in Crl.M.C. 1795/2020 despite the factum that the opportunity for leading defence evidence had been closed in as much as there are further two queries qua the alleged incriminating evidence allowed to be put to the petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, as directed hereinabove, it is considered appropriate to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in defence for which only one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to be given by the learned trial Court as per the diary of the learned trial Court on a date to be fixed by learned trial Court after recording the statement of the petitioners' authorized representative in terms of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. The petition is disposed of accordingly.