Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 925 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - presumption of innocence - calling the original statement of account from concerning bank in order to prove the factum of dishonour of cheque - section 91 311 of CrPC - HELD THAT - From bare perusal of provisions of Section 91 of CrPC, it is clear that provisions of Section 91 of CrPC may be utilized during recording of defence evidence. In Indian Criminal Jurisprudence, the presumption of innocence is the legal principle/tenet of criminal justice system. Under Section 91 of CrPC the sole discretion rests with the trial Court and the High Court should not interfere with the discretion conferred on the Trial Court in the matter of summoning documents except for their good reasons - under Section 311 of CrPC, the object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. It is the sole discretion of the Court in exercise of powers under Section 311 of CrPC and the determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case or not? On bare perusal of provisions of Sections 91 and 311 of CrPC, it apparent that non-affixing of seal over the documents is not material as in the light of provisions made under the Bankers Book Evidence Act, no Bank Officer shall be compelled to produce documents and it shall be presumed that the documents were issued by the authority of the Bank concerned and it can be proved before the Court very well. It is also relevant to mention here that the matter is regarding Section 138 of the NI Act and the objection raised by the petitioner in the present matter is irrelevant. The learned trial Court has not committed any manifest error of law warranting interference under exercise of inherent powers of this Court. Admittedly, there is no reason in the present matter to exercise powers under Section 482 of CrPC to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
- Challenge to rejection of application for calling original statement of account from the bank - Challenge to rejection of application for producing the bank passbook - Interpretation of Section 91 and Section 311 of CrPC - Application of legal principles regarding summoning of witnesses and additional evidence Analysis: The judgment by the MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT dealt with two petitions filed by the same petitioner challenging orders passed by the JMFC in a criminal case related to dishonour of a cheque. The petitioner sought to call the original statement of account and produce the bank passbook to prove the dishonour of the cheque. The petitioner contended that the rejection of the applications was erroneous, citing provisions of Section 311 of CrPC and relevant case laws. The respondent opposed the petitions, arguing that the trial court did not err in rejecting the applications as the evidence sought to be produced was not essential for a just decision. The Court analyzed Section 91 and Section 311 of CrPC, highlighting the powers of the Court to compel production of documents and summon witnesses. Referring to legal precedents, including the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Court emphasized the need for exercising discretion judiciously and ensuring that additional evidence is essential for a just decision. The Court noted that the discretion to summon documents or witnesses rests with the trial court, and interference by the High Court should only occur for valid reasons. Ultimately, the Court found that the rejection of the applications by the trial court was not manifestly erroneous. It emphasized the presumption of innocence and the discretion of the trial court in summoning documents or witnesses. The Court concluded that the objections raised by the petitioner were irrelevant to the case under Section 138 of the NI Act. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed for lacking merit, as the Court declined to interfere based on the analysis of the legal provisions and principles discussed in the judgment.
|