Rs. 13,43,854/-, at the instance of a friend. Rakesh Mago, also agreed to pay interest, on this loan. He also stated that he was having friendly relations with Rakesh Mago. As stated above, it was only a loan, on interest, which was given, to petitioner No. 2. Even a friend, can obtain a loan, on interest, from his friend. Such a loan, cannot be said to be a friendly loan. Under these circumstances, no ground, whatsoever, was made out, for recalling the complainant, for confronting him, with his statement (Annexure P2). The trial Court, was also right, in holding so. In Dinesh and others' case (supra), the evidence, was closed, and the arguments were heard, when an application, was moved, by the prosecution, to examine an additional witness, the application, was allowed. It was, under these circumstances, held that, the Court, has power, to summon or recall any witness for further examination or cross-examination. In Balwinder Singh's case (supra), it was also held, that discretionary power, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., could be exercised, even after the close of the evidence, and before the pronouncement of judgement. There is, no dispute, with the proposition of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. However, in the instant case, there was no justification, whatsoever, for recalling the complainant, for further cross-examination, in view of the statement, Annexure P2, referred to above. Recall of the complainant for further cross-examination, was neither, in the interest of justice, nor for the purpose of doing complete justice. The trial Court, was, thus, right in dismissing the application.
