9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interference with trial magistrate's order allowing document production at the end of the trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed the issue arising from a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant had completed presenting evidence, including examination and cross-examination, when the accused contested the service of notice. The trial magistrate permitted the complainant to produce additional material (a postal receipt) under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure a just decision. The accused challenged this decision before the High Court. The High Court, through a learned single judge, held that allowing the production of the postal receipt at a late stage was impermissible as it aimed to fill a "lacuna" in the case. The judge expressed concern that permitting the receipt would prejudice the accused and stated that such actions should not be allowed. The Supreme Court referenced the case law to explain the concept of a "lacuna" in a prosecution case, emphasizing that it does not equate to oversights or mistakes made during trial but rather refers to essential material necessary for a just decision. The Supreme Court highlighted previous decisions, including Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, emphasizing that the court's power to receive evidence under Section 311 of the Code can be exercised even after both sides have closed evidence. The court stressed that the key factor guiding the court in exercising this power should be the essential nature of the material for a just decision. The court noted the expansive power conferred by Section 311, as supported by case law. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had improperly interfered with the trial court's order. Despite being made aware of relevant case law, the High Court judge disregarded it. As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The accused was given the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant based on the new material produced, should they choose to do so by making a motion before the court.
|
