1999 (3) TMI 647 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Revision against order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 2410 of 1998 in C. C. No. 119 of 1997 dated September 2, 1998, regarding examination of a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioners. The respondent filed the complaint, and witnesses were examined, including the power agent, personnel officer of the bank, and an agricultural officer. The respondent sought to examine the director of the mills, Thiru L. Subramaniam, at a later stage, which led to a petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioners contended that the application under Section 311 was filed belatedly to fill a lacuna, as Thiru L. Subramaniam was not initially cited as a witness. The petitioners argued that defects cannot be cured by marking documents at a later stage and that the respondent had already assumed the role of Thiru L. Subramaniam.

3. On the other hand, the respondent argued that Section 311 provides wide powers to examine witnesses at any stage if essential to the case. The respondent's counsel emphasized the importance of examining Thiru L. Subramaniam to clarify the case.

4. The trial court allowed the respondent's petition under Section 311, which the petitioners challenged in the revision. The petitioners contended that allowing the examination of Thiru L. Subramaniam at a later stage would cause prejudice and that the respondent failed to establish authorization from other directors for Thiru L. Subramaniam's role.

5. In support of their argument, the petitioners cited a previous court decision emphasizing that rectifying prosecution laches through Section 311 should not prejudice the accused. They highlighted discrepancies in the respondent's case regarding authorization for Thiru L. Subramaniam's actions.

6. Ultimately, the court allowed the revision, setting aside the trial court's order to examine Thiru L. Subramaniam under Section 311. The court held that the trial court's decision had caused prejudice to the petitioners, leading to the dismissal of related petitions.