- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32037 CRL.P No. 11487 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11487 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR. CHANDRU R.K. C/O MANGEGOWDA RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT 1/B, 5TH CROSS 18TH MAIN ROAD, MUNESHWARA BLOCK AWALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560026. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANDAKUMAR .T.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. EQUITTALS SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS EQUITALS FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED OFFICE AT SWAMI LOTUS, NO. 110/6 LALBAGH ROAD CROSS KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560027. REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER MR. RAVI .T.J …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2025 ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.311 OF CPRC IN C.C.NO.14619/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL. JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM (SCCH-24) AT BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 138 OF NI ACT. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32037 CRL.P No. 11487 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the accused challenging the order of the learned Magistrate on an application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said application was filed seeking leave of the Court to recall PW.2 for the purpose of further cross-examination. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the record, rejected the application. While rejecting the same, the learned Magistrate has recorded a finding that PW.2 was already subjected to a detailed and exhaustive cross-examination wherein all crucial aspects relating to the disputed cheque were put to the witness. Having come to the conclusion that the witness was substantially cross-examined on all material particulars, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application. It is this order which is under challenge in the present proceedings. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32037 CRL.P No. 11487 of 2025 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that during the earlier cross-examination of PW.2, some crucial questions having a direct bearing on the defence of the accused could not be specifically posed to the witness due to oversight. He submits that the omission relates particularly to two aspects: (i) whether part payments made by the accused were duly accounted for by the complainant, and (ii) whether the General Power of Attorney, executed by one of the Directors, was competent to authorize PW.2 to depose on behalf of the complainant–company. It is urged that these omissions go to the root of the matter and therefore an opportunity to further cross-examine PW.2 ought to have been granted in the interest of justice. 4. On a careful perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate as well as the record, this Court finds no merit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32037 CRL.P No. 11487 of 2025 in the contentions urged. Insofar as the issue of part payment is concerned, it is well settled that once issuance of a cheque and its dishonour is established, a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the complainant. It is always open to the accused to rebut the said presumption by leading defence evidence. The question as to whether part payments were in fact made is essentially a matter for rebuttal evidence by the accused, and not one which necessitates a further cross-examination of PW.2. 5. It is also relevant to note that PW.2 has already been cross-examined at length covering all vital aspects including issuance and dishonour of the cheque, authority to depose, and other connected issues. The trial Court has rightly recorded that the cross-examination of PW.2 is substantial and exhaustive. The belated attempt to recall PW.2, when the matter was set down for arguments on behalf of the accused, appears to be an afterthought intended only to prolong the proceedings. Such - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32037 CRL.P No. 11487 of 2025 applications filed at the fag end of trial, without sufficient justification, cannot be entertained as they defeat the very object of expeditious disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. This Court, therefore, finds no error or perversity in the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion judiciously, and the order does not call for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66