2020 (8) TMI 375 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - cross-examination of the case - acquittal of the accused - sufficient opportunity to the complainant to lead further evidence of PW-1 not provided - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The respondent- accused has been secured by issuance of summons and thereafter the GPA holder of the complainant has been examined and subsequently, the case had been posted for cross-examination of PW-1 on 29.06.2019 and that the case came to be dismissed and the accused was acquitted. As could be seen from the order, it indicates that PW-1 was absent and the advocate for the complainant had sought time to keep PW-1 present for the purpose of cross- examination but without giving any opportunity, though time had been sought by the counsel for the complainant, erroneously, the impugned order has been passed. However, if one more opportunity is given, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-accused. Thus, if one more opportunity is given to the complainant-appellant to lead his evidence, without pleading for any further time, then under such circumstances, it would meet the ends of justice - The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously by affording full opportunity to the appellant-complainant - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal order in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act due to absence of witness PW-1.

Analysis:
1. Factual Background: The appeal challenges the dismissal order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC in a case where the complainant, a registered organization, provided a financial facility to the respondent for purchasing a vehicle. The respondent issued a cheque that was dishonored, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the trial court's order was erroneous, perverse, and deprived the complainant of a full opportunity to present evidence. The main ground was the absence of witness PW-1, the GPA holder of the complainant, during cross-examination. The appellant sought another chance to lead evidence to avoid financial hardship and ensure justice.

3. Arguments of the Respondent: The respondent's counsel contended that the trial court had provided adequate opportunities for the complainant to present evidence, and thus, the order should not be set aside.

4. Judicial Analysis: Upon reviewing the court records, it was noted that the absence of PW-1 during cross-examination led to the dismissal of the complaint. The court found that granting one more opportunity to the appellant to present evidence would not prejudice the respondent and would serve the interests of justice.

5. Judgment: The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and remanding the case for further proceedings. The trial court was directed to afford the appellant full opportunity to present evidence, emphasizing the appellant's presence as necessary. The complainant was instructed to appear before the trial court without further notice, and the court was directed to proceed with the matter promptly and in accordance with the law.