Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (12) TMI 233 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues:
1. Petitioner's right to cross-examine the complainant and lead defense evidence.
2. Delay in trial proceedings and abuse of the legal process.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate closing the right to cross-examine the complainant and lead defense evidence. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the petitioner for dishonor of a cheque. The petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court multiple times, resulting in the closure of his right to cross-examine the complainant. The Court emphasized that a fair trial is crucial, granting the petitioner one last opportunity to lead defense evidence, subject to examining all defense witnesses in a single day. The Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within three months to expedite the proceedings.

2. The respondent opposed the petitioner's plea, citing delays caused by the petitioner in the trial proceedings. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that such powers should be exercised sparingly in cases of patent error or gross injustice. The Court referred to a previous case to outline the principles guiding the recall of witnesses, emphasizing that a mere change of counsel cannot be a ground for recall. Despite acknowledging the petitioner's delays, the Court balanced the rights of the accused with the need for a fair trial, granting one final opportunity while imposing a cost of ?10,000 on the petitioner.

3. The judgment focused on upholding the principles of fair trial and judicial oversight while addressing the delays caused by the petitioner. The Court balanced the interests of both parties, granting the petitioner a final opportunity to lead defense evidence within a specified timeframe to expedite the trial proceedings. The decision aimed to ensure justice while maintaining the efficiency of the legal process, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution in cases involving financial transactions and dishonored cheques.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates