2022 (9) TMI 1152 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - discharge of legal debt or not - genuineness of books of accounts - cross examination of accountant of the firm - offence u/s 138 of the Act - HELD THAT - The present petitions are liable to be dismissed as in para 1 of the complaint, specific stand has been taken that proper account books are being maintained during its regular course of business and the respondent-complainant wanted to examine the Accountant of the Firm, only in order to prove the factum of the account books and outstanding amount in order to prove the legally enforceable debt and the said material is very important for the just decision of the complaint and further, by summoning the income tax records, the complainant wanted to substantiate the legal debt and the outstanding amount of the accused Firm. Further, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners as the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses has already been granted to them. It is the settled law that object underlying the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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 statements of witnesses examined from either side. The exercise of widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts and if evidence of any witness appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case, the same should be exercised. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of order allowing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by Additional Sessions Judge.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana involved the quashing of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, allowing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The petitioners sought the quashing of the order dated 11.02.2019, which reversed the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran. The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioners for dishonoring a cheque. The complainant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon additional witnesses, which was initially dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate but later allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

The key contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed to fill a lacuna, and the court did not adequately assess the necessity of additional evidence for a just decision. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel argued that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was legal and valid, and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners as they were granted the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The relevant legal provision, Section 311 Cr.P.C., empowers the court to summon material witnesses or examine persons present if their evidence is essential for a just decision.

The judgment referred to a Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar, emphasizing principles to be considered when exercising the discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. These principles include ensuring that new evidence is necessary for a just decision, avoiding speculative presentation of facts, and exercising the power judiciously to determine the truth and render a just decision. It was highlighted that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be invoked to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons, ensuring fair trial and safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.

After considering the arguments and legal principles, the High Court concluded that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was justified as the additional evidence was crucial for the just decision of the case. The court reiterated that the purpose of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to prevent a failure of justice due to the omission of valuable evidence. Consequently, the court found no merit in the petitions seeking to quash the order allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Both petitions were dismissed, and all interim orders were vacated, with pending applications disposed of accordingly.