02. CRR 3582 of 2026 Omprakash Saraogi Ct.29 -vs- Saurya Prasad Garga 28.08.2026 Bd. Mr. Tapas Dutta Mr. Biswajit Naha … for the petitioner. In this application petitioner has assailed the order dated 20th June, 2026 by which the court below had rejected the petitioner’s/complainant prayer for marking the bank return memo and bank’s connected reply as an exhibit on the ground that section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, does not provide the procedure for formally exhibiting a document after closure of evidence or at the stage of argument. Therefore, he observed that section 146 of the N.I. Act cannot be used as a tool to Exhibit the Bank return memo. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the learned Magistrate itself found that the question to mark the Bank certificate as an exhibit arose, because the accused had not been afforded an opportunity to test its authenticity by cross-examination, the proper course was to consider whether such prejudice could be completely cured by summoning the competent Bank official for limited examination and cross-examination. In fact, section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide power upon the Criminal Court to summon, examine, recall or re-examine a material witness at any stage of a trial and the closure of evidence or commencement of argument is not by itself an absolute bar where the evidence appears essential to a just decision. He further submits that certificate dated 2 06.12.2025 issued by the bank authority does not introduce a new transaction, new cheque, new allegation or a different prosecution case. It relates exclusively to the cheque return memo already produced before the court and marked as “X-1” for identification and explains the omission of the concerned Bank itself in issuing the said return memo without physical seal/signature. He also argued that an intrinsic weakness in a party’s case stands on a different footing from an omission in formally proving relevant material, particularly where the omission is capable of being corrected without changing the nature of the case and without causing prejudice to the accused party. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order impugned. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and that the prayer made by the petitioner is innocuous I find it is required to be allowed to secure the ends of justice. In view of the above, the instant application being CRR 3582 of 2026 is hereby disposed of with a direction upon the court below to summon the concerned Bank witnesses in order to prove/disprove the alleged letter issued by the Bank dated 06.12.2025 as well as the return memo dated 13th December, 2018 within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order and thereafter he will proceed further. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)