2022 (6) TMI 297 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - seeking to recall and re-examine the complainant for the purpose of marking certain additional documents produced after concluding examination of the complainant as PW1 - Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - In the case on hand, the trial court has observed after perusing the documents proposed to be marked in additional evidence that the matters proposed to be established through the documents are in no way related to the pleadings of the complainant in the complaint. Complainant's specific case in the complaint was that he is conducting steel and cement business and the accused as a customer of him owed a liability of Rs. 5,00,000/- to him. The name of the business concern having not been mentioned in the complaint, the bills proposed for marking cannot be said to have any connection to the transaction alleged in the complaint. The impugned order is not liable to be interfered with - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to recall and re-examine the complainant for marking additional documents; Dismissal of the application by the trial court; Contention of petitioner's counsel regarding the dismissal; Objections by the counsel for the accused against additional documents produced; Dispute over the admissibility and relevance of additional documents; Lack of connection between the additional documents and the pleadings in the complaint.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to recall and re-examine the complainant for the purpose of marking additional documents produced after the examination of the complainant as PW1. The trial court dismissed the application based on various reasons provided in the order. The court noted that the documents produced seemed to fill a gap in the case, as there were suggestions of non-production of bills during cross-examination. The complainant's explanation for not producing bills earlier was considered insufficient, leading to doubts about the credibility of the complainant's version.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the court erred in dismissing the application, emphasizing the timing of the document submissions after the examination of the complainant. However, the counsel for the accused opposed the reception of additional documents, claiming they were only carbon copies and not directly related to the transaction period mentioned in the complaint. The complainant's failure to mention the name of the business concern in the complaint further raised doubts about the relevance of the additional documents.

The court analyzed the situation and found that the proposed additional documents did not align with the complainant's specific case outlined in the complaint. The complainant alleged a transaction involving a steel and cement business, with the accused owing a substantial amount. However, since the business concern's name was not disclosed in the complaint, the bills proposed for marking lacked a clear connection to the alleged transaction. Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., concluding that the impugned order did not warrant interference. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was deemed to have failed and was dismissed accordingly.