Criminal Procedure evidence recall and document summons may be refused when sought only to fill a lacuna.

Sections 91 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permit summons of documents and recall of witnesses only when the additional evidence is necessary or desirable for a just decision. The court must exercise that discretion judiciously and may refuse requests that appear intended merely to fill a lacuna. In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the absence of a seal on the cheque return memo was treated as immaterial, and no ground was found to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482. The refusal to summon bank records and recall the bank witness was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the applications under Sections 91 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for summoning the bank statement and passbook and for calling the bank officer to prove dishonour of the cheque.

Analysis: Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enables summoning of documents when their production is necessary or desirable for the proceedings, while Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers wide discretion to summon, recall, or re-examine a witness if the evidence is essential to a just decision. That discretion must be exercised judiciously, and the Court must be satisfied that the additional evidence is genuinely required and is not a device to fill up a lacuna. On the facts, the absence of a seal on the cheque return memo was not treated as material, and the request was considered irrelevant in the context of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. No manifest error in the trial court's refusal was shown, and no basis was found to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The refusal to summon the bank records and recall the witness was upheld and the petitioner failed to obtain relief.

Final Conclusion: The applications for production of additional bank evidence and recall of witness were held to be unwarranted, and the challenge to their rejection failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A request under Sections 91 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be declined where the proposed evidence is not shown to be essential for a just decision and the application would merely serve to fill a lacuna rather than secure the ends of justice.

---