2022 (4) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Violation of principles of natural justice - permission to petitioner to cross-examine the complainant was declined - Dishonor of Cheque - HELD THAT - From the perusal of the same, it appears that CW-2 Kulwant Singh was not cited as a witness in the said complaint. Admittedly, respondent No.1-Manvir Singh was examined as CW1 in the trial Court and in his examination-in-chief, respondent No.1 remained silent about getting any amount from aforesaid Kulwant Singh and thereafter, respondent No.1 tendered aforesaid Kulwant Singh as CW2 and his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit is Annexure P-3. From the perusal of the said examination-in-chief, it appears that he is close friend of respondent No.1-Manvir Singh. Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers a wide discretion on the Court to act as the exigencies of justice require to summon a witness or recall or re- examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. Further it is the duty of every Court to ensure that a fair and proper opportunities are granted to the accused for just decision of the case. Thus, it stands established that certain new facts surfaced in the examination-in-chief of CW-2/Kulwant Singh. In these circumstances, interest of justice demands that opportunity be given to the petitioner to further cross-examine respondent No.1-Manvir Singh with regard to facts which came on record for the first time in the examination-in-chief of CW-2 Kulwant Singh. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner is allowed

Summary

Issues involved:
Application for preponing the date of hearing in the application for stay; Revision petition against the order declining permission for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
The present judgment deals with a revision petition filed against an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, SBS Nagar, declining permission for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondent against the petitioner for dishonoring a post-dated cheque. The petitioner sought permission to further cross-examine the complainant due to new facts emerging during the examination-in-chief of a witness not cited in the complaint. The petitioner contended that the trial Court should allow the further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C., citing the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar. On the other hand, the respondent argued that there was no illegality in the impugned order and no new information was introduced by the witness in question.

The Court examined the submissions of both parties and reviewed the complaint and the examination-in-chief of the witness not cited in the complaint. It was noted that the witness revealed new facts, including details of a friendly loan transaction between the petitioner and the respondent, which were not mentioned in the original complaint. The Court highlighted that Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to recall or re-examine any person if their evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. It emphasized the duty of the Court to ensure fair opportunities for the accused in the case.

Based on the above analysis, the Court concluded that new facts emerged during the examination-in-chief of the witness, necessitating further cross-examination of the complainant for a just decision. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted permission to further cross-examine the respondent regarding the new facts revealed during the examination-in-chief of the witness. This decision was made to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in the case.