9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 996 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - existence of legally enforceable debt or not - impugned orders challenged on the grounds that the same were passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and without considering that the documents sought to be exhibited - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The object underlying Section 311 CrPC is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The significant expression that occurs is at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code . It is, however, to be borne in mind that the discretionary power conferred under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion. It is the duty of the Court to discover the truth and truth is the foundation of the justice. Section 311 Cr.P.C. is one of the provisions which assist the Court in the discovery of the truth. It is true that the power under section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reason with caution to meet the ends of justice. Simultaneously, the Court has the duty to give adequate opportunity to the parties to lead evidence for fair trial. After considering all facts, the petitioner is given liberty to file additional affidavit of CW-2 Anil Rajput in evidence and to place on record the documents as mentioned in the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. and to lead evidence as per the direction to be given by the concerned Trial Court - Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of orders dated 01.11.2018 and 21.01.2019. 2. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for additional evidence. 3. Authorization of the complainant's representative. 4. Lawful institution and maintainability of the complaint. 5. Just decision of the case and discovery of truth. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Quashing of Orders Dated 01.11.2018 and 21.01.2019 The petitioner sought the quashing of the orders passed by the ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which dismissed applications for filing supplementary affidavits and producing additional evidence. The orders were challenged on the grounds that they were passed mechanically without due application of mind and against settled law. Issue 2: Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for Additional Evidence The petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to produce additional evidence, including the Board Resolution dated 02.03.2006, Letter of Authority dated 25.09.2006, and Power of Attorney dated 18.10.2012. The trial court dismissed the application, stating that the witness CW-2 had specifically stated he was not relying on the document Ex. CW1/A. The court emphasized that allowing such applications would lead to indefinite trials and piecemeal evidence submission. Issue 3: Authorization of the Complainant's Representative The petitioner company had appointed various authorized representatives through a series of resolutions and letters of authority. The trial court dismissed the application to exhibit these documents, noting that CW-2 had already stated he was not relying on the Board Resolution dated 02.03.2006, making subsequent authorizations inconsequential. The court held that the complainant could not improve its case by introducing these documents at a later stage. Issue 4: Lawful Institution and Maintainability of the Complaint The petitioner argued that the foundational documents proving the lawful institution and maintainability of the complaint were essential for a just decision. The trial court's refusal to admit these documents was seen as putting the complainant in a disadvantaged position, despite the documents being on record. Issue 5: Just Decision of the Case and Discovery of Truth Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon any person as a witness if their evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. The Supreme Court has held that this power should be exercised to discover the truth and ensure justice. The petitioner argued that no prejudice would be caused by admitting the documents, and the trial court should have allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Conclusion: The High Court considered that the trial court had a duty to discover the truth and provide a fair trial by allowing parties to lead evidence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioner was given liberty to file an additional affidavit of CW-2 Anil Rajput and place the necessary documents on record. The petition was disposed of, and the trial court was directed to proceed as per the new evidence submitted.
|
