2021 (5) TMI 457 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - It is the specific case of the accused before the trial Court that PW.2 is not having authorization to represent the petitioner s firm and to give evidence on its behalf - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - The petitioner did not file the authorization letter given by it in favour of PW.2 and also the deed of partnership. The authorization given in favour of PW.2 was dated 10.04.2002 itself. The deed of partnership is dated 01.04.2002. Despite giving opportunity by the Court below by allowing the applications filed on 27.01.2020, the petitioner did not file the said documents. It is the specific case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner herein invented the said documents only in the year 2020 in order to fill up lacunae. The impugned order is well-reasoned and well-founded and it does not warrant interference by this Court. Thus, the petitioner failed to make out any ground warranting interference by this Court and, therefore, the present criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a common order passed by the Special Magistrate regarding reopening of the matter for further examination and marking of documents.

Analysis:
1. Facts and Background: The petitioner filed a complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner sought to reopen the matter for further examination of PW.2 and to mark documents, citing changes in authorized representatives and the need to file missing documents.

2. Submissions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that filing the authorization letter and partnership deed would not prejudice the accused and should be allowed on costs.

3. Submissions of Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Respondents contended that the petitioner failed to file the required documents despite previous opportunities, and the attempts to introduce them later were to cover up deficiencies impermissibly.

4. Court's Findings: The Court noted the history of authorized representatives and previous applications to reopen the case. It highlighted discrepancies in authorization and filing of documents, emphasizing the importance of proper representation and evidence in legal proceedings.

5. Legal Analysis: The Court discussed the burden of proof in cases under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and the relevance of evidence like authorization letters. It cited precedents emphasizing the cautious use of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses and the need to avoid prejudicing the accused or filling gaps in the prosecution's case.

6. Judgment: The Court dismissed all three Criminal Petitions, upholding the lower court's decision to reject the applications to reopen the matter. It concluded that the petitioner's actions lacked diligence and were aimed at filling lacunae impermissibly, justifying the dismissal of the petitions.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the court's findings, legal analysis, and the ultimate judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment delivered by the Telangana High Court.