2016 (1) TMI 993 - HC - Indian Laws

Complaint against the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Appellant requested the Court to permit him to examine ten witnesses - Out of ten witnesses named in the application, the trial Court permitted the applicant to examine three witnesses. - Held that - Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned orders. No good ground has been made out to interfere, in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. - Application rejected - Decided against the applicant / appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the legality and validity of the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court and the Revisional Court regarding examination of defense witnesses in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
The applicant, the original accused, challenged the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court and the Revisional Court regarding the examination of defense witnesses in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant sought permission to examine ten witnesses, including individuals such as the accused himself, court officials, Bar Council representatives, municipal authorities, police officers, and family members of the complainant. However, the trial Court only allowed the examination of three witnesses, leading to the applicant's dissatisfaction and subsequent filing of a Criminal Revision Application. The Revisional Court upheld the trial Court's decision, prompting the applicant to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Upon hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the case materials, the High Court judge, Mr. J.B. Pardiwala, found no error or legal flaw in the orders passed by the lower courts. The judge determined that there was no basis to interfere in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the applicant's challenge, upholding the decisions of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court and the Revisional Court regarding the examination of defense witnesses in the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.