2015 (3) TMI 774 - SC - Indian Laws

Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, recorded - Material documents not placed when statement was recorded - Held that - In our opinion, the appellant is right in his contention. Since these documents were material, the appropriate course of action for the High Court was to remand the matter back to the trial court for recording a supplementary statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code instead of straight away convicting the appellant without giving him an opportunity to have a say in respect of the documents, viz., exhibit CW 3/3 (collectively) and CW 3/4 (collectively). Under the circumstances, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the matter back to the trial court for recording a supplementary statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code and passing appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.- Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dishonour of cheques for purchase of components of DG sets.
2. Disallowance of application under Section 311 of the Code for producing additional witnesses and documents.
3. Conviction based on documents not put to the appellant during statement recording under Section 313 of the Code.

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around dishonoured cheques issued by the appellant for the purchase of components of DG sets. The appellant claimed that the cheques were given as advance payment, but due to non-supply of components, the appellant instructed the bank to stop payment and closed the account. Subsequently, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 by the complainant/respondent.

2. The complainant/respondent moved an application under Section 311 of the Code for producing additional witnesses and documents, which was initially disallowed by the trial court. However, the Sessions Court allowed the revision, leading to the recording of CW 3's statement and the submission of relevant documents. The trial court then acquitted the appellant, but the High Court, based on these documents, convicted the appellant.

3. The appellant contested that the High Court's conviction was unjust as the documents crucial to the case were not presented to the appellant during the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Code. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant, stating that the High Court should have remanded the matter back to the trial court for a supplementary statement under Section 313 instead of convicting the appellant outright. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings, including recording a supplementary statement and allowing the appellant to present further evidence if needed. The trial court was instructed to proceed expeditiously.