JUDGMENT & ORDER : PRANJAL DAS, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Konwar learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dewri, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, herein who as accused is facing a proceeding before the learned Court below under Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881 (hereinafter the Act), is challenging the impugned order dated 31.05.2025, passed by the learned JMFC No.4, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, rejecting the application of the petitioner/accused seeking to call some additional witnesses in exercise of powers of the Section 311 Cr.PC. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has stated and submitted that there was a transaction of Rs.50,000/- between the parties which the petitioner claims to have returned. However, at the time of transaction, three security cheques were given by him and he contends that misusing one of them, the instant proceeding has been filed seeking Rs.7,00,000/- for him. He contends that he never borrowed such money from the complainant. The complainant impleaded as respondent no.2 has entered appearance. 4. The primary contention of the petitioner/accused is that after the closure of evidence, he has discovered certain facts and that there is one person, who had issued a notice on the instruction of the complainant with regard to alleged dishonor of a cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) only. 5. It is contended that however, with regard to the said dishonour, the respondent/complainant never initiated any proceeding under 138 of the Act; further contending that transaction was also by way of misusing one of the security cheques. 6. It is contended in this backdrop, that the testimony of that witness is essential in support of his contention that the present proceeding before the trial court has been initiated by misusing one of the security cheques even though the petitioner/accused has returned the actual amount, which he had borrowed. The contentions have been narrated in para 8 of this petition. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that the petition filed by the accused was nothing but an attempt to delay the proceeding and cover up lacunae in the case and that the learned trial court rightly dismissed the same and therefore, there is no merit in this criminal revision petition. 8. I have perused the materials and considered the submissions. 9. 8. I have perused the materials and considered the submissions. 9. The case is at the stage of final argument and that was one of the main reasons why the learned trial court was not inclined to allow the petition under Section 311 Cr.PC [ Section 348 BNSS ]. 10. I have perused the judgment placed by the petitioner’s side namely, Biraj Sarmah Dhital @ Biraj Sharma Dhital, Varsha Garg Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others , reported in (2023) 19 SCC 646 – Upon perusing the said judgment, two of the important principles that emerged are that – (i) essentiality of evidence of the person whose to be examined coupled with the need for just decision of the case constitutes the touchstone, which must guide the decision of the Court [Para 32]. (ii) the power of the Court is also not constrained by the closure of evidence [para 36]. 11. It is well settled that powers under Section 311 Cr.PC [ Section 348 BNSS ] can be exercise at any stage, if the Court considers it necessary in the interest of justice. 12. The primary duty of trial court is to find the truth and the principles which have emanated from Section 311 Cr.PC [ Section 348 BNSS ] are to assist that exercise of finding the truth and therefore, they can be invoked at any time even at the fag end of the trial provided sufficient justification appeals to the judicial conscience of the Court. 13. Coming to this instant case, the primary contention of the petitioner is misuse of security cheques as has emerged from his contentions from the revision petition. The additional witness sought to be examined is stated to be a person who issued the notice to the petitioner on the instructions of the complainant with regard to another cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) stated to have bounced; but for which the complainant never took re-course to Section 138 of the Act. 14. The petitioner seeks to use this aspect to support his case that the cheque pertaining to the complaint proceeding undergoing trial was also such an exercise of misusing one of the security cheques. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) stated to have bounced; but for which the complainant never took re-course to Section 138 of the Act. 14. The petitioner seeks to use this aspect to support his case that the cheque pertaining to the complaint proceeding undergoing trial was also such an exercise of misusing one of the security cheques. Therefore, I hold that examination of this additional person as witness would facilitate the exercise of finding the truth of the matter and therefore, the powers under Section 311 Cr.PC [ Section 348 BNSS ] can be exercised for the same. 15. However, apart from mentioning in the prayer about recalling the complainant and DW-1 also, under Section 311 Cr.PC – the petitioner has not stated any reasons. I did not notice the contentions in support of the prayer for recalling DW-1 and the complainant for examination. Therefore, I hold that PW has not made out sufficient case for exercising 311 Cr.PC to recall complainant and DW-1. 16. Thus, I find partial merit in this case and the impugned order dated 31.05.2025, passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup(M), Guwahati is partly set aside and the prayer of the petitioner/accused to re-call the additional witness with regard to the other notice stated to have been sent by the complainant is allowed in exercise of powers under Section 348 BNSS . 17. The party shall appear before the learned trial court on 15.09.2025 whereupon the petitioner/accused shall submit an application narrating the particulars of the additional witness, who then shall be summoned in exercise of powers under Section 348 BNSS . There should be no delay in the proceeding at the behest of either side, especially the petitioner/accused. 18. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition stands partly allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms.