Evidence of one distinct criminal proceeding cannot be interchanged or incorporated into another through Section 482 CrPC.

The respondent filed two complaints against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the dishonor of two different cheques (CR Case Nos. 3044C/2010 and 3045C/2010).

During trial, the petitioner moved applications under Sections 294 and 311 of the CrPC, requesting that the complainant (PW-1) be recalled in each case to admit or deny statements made during cross-examination in the other (parallel) case.

Specifically, the petitioner alleged that in one case, the complainant admitted the accused signs in Hindi, whereas documents in the other case were in English.

The Trial Court rejected these petitions, noting the delay in filing and that the defense had already cross-examined the witness at length.

The Revisional Court subsequently refused to admit revision petitions against these orders.

The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

1. Whether a party can be permitted to recall a witness under Section 311 CrPC for the sole purpose of interchanging or confronting them with evidence/statements recorded in a distinct, though parallel, criminal proceeding.

2. Whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC should be invoked to interfere with discretionary interlocutory orders regarding the recall of witnesses in long-pending cases.

Section 482 of the CrPC, which saves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

Section 311 of the CrPC regarding the power to summon material witnesses or examine persons present, and Section 294 of the CrPC regarding the admission/denial of documents.

The court also referenced the "limited defense" available under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the principles of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that while an accused must be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves, the procedural law does not allow for the "routine" interchange of evidence between two distinct criminal cases.

The Court reasoned that although the parties were the same, each case involved the dishonor of a different cheque and constituted a separate proceeding.

It held that the petitioner’s prayer to compel the witness to admit his cross-examination from one case into the record of another was not a valid use of Section 482, as it did not serve to prevent an "abuse of process".

The Court also noted that the petitioner should not be entirely stifled in his defense; while the specific prayer to "interchange" evidence was rejected, the petitioner should remain at liberty to seek appropriate relief according to the Indian Evidence Act or CrPC for cross-examination within the bounds of law.

The Court set aside and quashed the impugned orders dated 04.04.2017 and 20.02.2017 only to the extent of allowing the petitioner the liberty to approach the Trial Court for any other relief in accordance with law for his defense.