2013 (11) TMI 1812 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside order in complaint under Section 138 NI Act; Dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for additional evidence.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner, a partnership firm, filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act regarding a bounced cheque. The complaint was filed through a Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Rohit Jain. During the trial, it was revealed that the Special Power of Attorney was not notarized. The petitioner sought to introduce new evidence, including a notarized power of attorney and the testimony of another partner. The Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., stating it cannot be used to fill a lacuna in the prosecution. The petitioner argued that rectifying procedural errors is permissible at any stage and cited relevant case law. The Court noted that the power to summon witnesses or recall them is essential for a just decision and that rectifying inadvertent mistakes should be allowed in the interest of justice.

Issue 2: Legal Interpretation and Precedents
The Court referred to cases such as Grafitek International v. K.K. Kaura and Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell to emphasize that procedural defects, like a notarization lapse in a power of attorney, should not impede the administration of justice. The importance of notarization was acknowledged, but it was highlighted that rectifying such defects during the case does not invalidate the authority conferred. The Court emphasized that procedural laws should serve the interests of justice and not hinder it, allowing for rectification of errors to ensure a fair trial.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the impugned order, allowing the petitioner to introduce the new evidence. The dismissal of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was overturned, emphasizing the importance of rectifying procedural defects to uphold the principles of justice. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court, with costs imposed on the petitioner for the respondent.