9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and Section 311 Cr.P.C., the refusal to produce certain documents, and the subsequent appeal under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Summary: Issue 1: Rejection of applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and Section 311 Cr.P.C. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. regarding a bounced cheque. During the trial, the respondent filed applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking the production of certain documents and recalling the witness for cross-examination. The Trial Court rejected these applications. However, the High Court allowed the respondent's Criminal Revisions without issuing notice to the appellant. The Supreme Court found this action illogical as the appellant should have been given a hearing to contest the production of personal documents. The order of the High Court was set aside on this ground. Issue 2: Nature of the Trial Court's Orders The Trial Court's orders refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. were deemed interlocutory. The Trial Court had already established that the cheque was signed by the respondent, and the defense raised was regarding the loss of signed cheques. The Trial Court's finding that the documents were unnecessary indicated that the orders were of an interlocutory nature. Therefore, the revision against these orders was not maintainable under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The High Court's interference in its revisional jurisdiction was deemed incorrect in law, leading to the setting aside of the impugned judgment by the Supreme Court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order that had allowed the respondent's Criminal Revisions without giving the appellant a fair hearing and highlighting the interlocutory nature of the Trial Court's orders.
|
