2020 (3) TMI 137 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - application moved under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning the documents - HELD THAT - The powers conferred under Section 91 of the Cr. P.C. are, enabling in nature, aimed at arming the Court or any officer-in-charge of a Police Station concerned to enforce and to ensure the production of any document or other things, necessary or desirable , for the purposes of any investigation, enquiry, trial or the proceedings under the Code, by issuing a summons or a written order to those in possession of such material - The language of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. would, no doubt, indicate the width of the powers to be unlimited, but the inbuilt inherent limitation takes its colour and shape from the stage or point of time of its exercise, commensurately with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity and desirability, to fulfill the task or achieve the object. The Sine qua non of an order under this Section is a consideration by the court that the production of the documents concerned is desirable and necessary for the purposes of the trial. Whether a document should be summoned or not, is essentially discretion of the trial Court - The Apex Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs Anr. Vs. L.R. Malwani Anr. 1968 (10) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT has held that except for very good reasons, the High Court should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below. Thus, the trial Court has considered the necessity of the documents to be produced in its proper prospective and has exercised its discretion in rejecting the application for the reasons mentioned therein - no apparent jurisdictional error appears to have been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. warranting interference or exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Rejection of application under section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - The said application was moved on the ground that it is important to get the ink and signature of the so called agreement examined from Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal for the purpose of just and fair trial. It is further mentioned that due to accident of the earlier counsel Shri Rajeev Chauhan all these aspects could not be examined at the time of recording the evidence. As such the application deserves to be allowed. The learned Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the applications - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the revision petition assailing the Trial Court's order.
2. Application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. for re-examination of prosecution witnesses.
3. Application under section 91 of Cr.P.C. for summoning relevant documents.
4. Application under section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. for examination of ink and signature.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Revision Petition:
The petitioner filed a revision petition assailing the Trial Court's order, which dismissed three applications under Cr.P.C. The Revisional Court also dismissed the petition on grounds of maintainability. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging these orders of rejection.

Issue 2: Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner moved an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking re-examination of prosecution witnesses due to the earlier counsel's inability to thoroughly cross-examine them. The petitioner argued for the necessity of recalling witnesses for cross-examination on specific aspects. However, the Court held that the request for re-examination solely based on the earlier counsel's accident was not a valid ground. Referring to legal precedents, the Court emphasized that the power to recall witnesses should be exercised judiciously to prevent a failure of justice. Ultimately, the Trial Court's rejection of the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. was upheld.

Issue 3: Application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.:
Another application was made under section 91 of Cr.P.C. to summon the complainant's income tax return documents to ascertain financial capacity. The petitioner argued that these documents were crucial for a just adjudication. The Trial Court, however, rejected the application citing the burden of proof on the complainant and multiple opportunities for cross-examination granted to the petitioner. The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, stating that the necessity of documents for trial purposes is at the discretion of the Trial Court.

Issue 4: Application under Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C.:
An application under section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed for examining the ink and signature of an agreement from a Forensic Science Laboratory. The petitioner claimed that due to the earlier counsel's accident, these aspects were not examined during evidence recording. The respondent argued that the accident occurred after the closure of the right to defense. The Trial Court rejected the application, emphasizing that the right was closed before the accident and the plea for examination was a delay tactic. The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, stating that no fault was found with the rejection of all three applications.

In conclusion, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's decisions regarding the applications under sections 311, 91, and 243(2) of Cr.P.C.