2022 (2) TMI 244 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - seeking opportunity and sufficient time to re-examine the witness - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In this case, petitioner wanted re-examination of witness on the ground that earlier counsel did not ask material questions and he appointed new counsel for his defence therefore, he was permitted to re-examine the witness. The learned trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner on this ground that appointing a new counsel is not a ground of re-examination of the witness. The ground of dismissal of the application by the court below is not as per the standard of law as prescribed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. This Court deems it appropriate that the present petition be allowed and the trial court be directed to permit the petitioner to re-examine the witness - the trial Court is directed to give one effective opportunity to the petitioner to get to re-examine the witness and petitioner/accused shall bear the cost of witness which would be fixed by the learned trial court the trial court is free to impose condition as it thinks fit. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against rejection of application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate First Class and Additional Sessions Judge.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the rejection of the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The complainant had filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner for dishonoring a cheque. The petitioner sought to re-examine a witness as some important questions were left unasked by the earlier counsel. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that the accused had sufficient time for cross-examination. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was also rejected. The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were contrary to law and the material on record, seeking reliance on relevant case laws. The State supported the impugned order, and respondent No. 2 did not appear despite being served notice. The High Court referred to the provisions of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and emphasized the discretionary power of the Court to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The Court noted that the trial court's dismissal was not in line with the law and directed the trial court to allow the petitioner to re-examine the witness, with the petitioner bearing the witness's cost and subject to conditions set by the trial court.

Outcome:
The High Court allowed the petition, directing the trial court to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to re-examine the witness. The petitioner was instructed not to repeat questions already asked in cross-examination and not to seek adjournments without valid reasons. If any witness was unavailable, their testimony would be considered as evidence. The High Court disposed of the petition with these directions, also disposing of any pending applications.