2019 (5) TMI 965 - HC - Indian Laws

Principles of Natural justice - reopening of evidence of the witness - case of petitioner is that sufficient opportunity is to be afforded to the petitioner to produce certain documents and to recall PW.1 for marking those documents by reopening the case as the said documents are essential to decide the real controversy between the parties - HELD THAT - No doubt, Section 311 of the Code confers power on the Court to summon any witness or to examine any witness, who was present though not summoned or re-examine any witness subject to recording satisfaction by the Court. At the same time, the Law is wellsettled that this Court cannot exercise such power in casual manner and that the Court must take into consideration the consequence of allowing such applications at belated stage. Section 311 of the Code consists of two limbs. The first limb confers power on the Court to summon, recall and re-examine any witness already examined and record evidence of any witness who was present though not summoned, and the second limb of Section says that when the Court satisfied that the evidence of any witness is essential, the Magistrate may record reasons and recall any witness - The facts in the present case would not fall within the second limb; it would fall within the first limb. The petitioner did not explain the reason for his failure to file documents at the earliest stage and PW.1 was only a power of Attorney Holder of the complainant, whereas the documents pertain to the period prior to execution of Power of Attorney in favour of PW.1 by the complainant. Therefore, PW.1, at best, is entitled to adduce evidence which is within his knowledge after execution of power of attorney, but the documents sought to be produced before the Court below are pertaining to the period prior to execution of General Power of Attorney in favour of PW.1. Therefore, he is not competent to speak about the documents which are sought to be produced by the petitioner - PW.1. However, this Court cannot exercise power under Section 311 of the Code to reopen the evidence of any witness. When the Calendar Case is posted for judgment, filing petitions for reopening etc. does not arise, since the duty of the Magistrate is to pronounce the judgment without involvement of petitioner and respondent - thus, this is not a fit case to quash the impugned order passed by the Court below. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the common order dated 04.09.2018 by the Special Magistrate Court-I, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Reopening of the case and recalling PW.1.
3. Admissibility and relevance of additional documents proposed to be filed by the petitioner.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Common Order Dated 04.09.2018:
The petitioner sought to quash the common order passed by the Special Magistrate Court-I, which dismissed the petitions to recall PW.1 and to receive additional documents. The petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, aiming to overturn the decision that denied reopening the case and recalling the witness for marking new evidence. The court noted that the petitions were filed just one day before the judgment was to be pronounced, raising concerns about the intention to delay the proceedings.

2. Reopening of the Case and Recalling PW.1:
The petitioner argued that sufficient opportunity was not given to produce certain essential documents and to recall PW.1 for marking those documents. The court examined the application under Section 311 of the Code, which allows recalling a witness if their evidence is deemed essential. However, it was highlighted that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not producing the documents earlier. Moreover, PW.1, being the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, could not competently speak about documents pertaining to periods before the execution of the GPA. The court emphasized that Section 311 should not be exercised casually and must consider the consequences of allowing such applications at a late stage.

3. Admissibility and Relevance of Additional Documents:
The petitioner intended to introduce documents like a promissory note, reply notice, emails, and a sale deed. The court found that these documents were not filed at the appropriate stage due to a communication gap. The defense argued that the petitions were filed to protract the proceedings. The court referenced multiple judgments, including those from the Karnataka, Madras, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, to discuss the admissibility of additional evidence. However, it concluded that in the absence of any provision in the Code to reopen evidence, the court cannot normally exercise such power unless it is essential for a just decision. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, which stated that once a case is posted for judgment, reopening it is not permissible.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both Criminal Petitions, stating that the petitioner failed to justify the need for reopening the case and recalling the witness at such a late stage. The court stressed that the duty of the Magistrate is to pronounce the judgment without the involvement of the petitioner and respondent once the case is posted for judgment. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed at the admission stage, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.