9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 383 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - application preferred by the respondent / complainant under Section 311 for re-examination of the complainant has been allowed - validity of new documents filed for examination - HELD THAT - From perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that after completion of the trial, the respondent / complainant has obtained certain new documents, which relates to the Proprietorship of the petitioner / accused Firm. It is also alleged that letter of authority has also been issued in favour of the petitioner / accused. Therefore, in view of the new documents filed by the respondent re-examination of the petitioner / accused is just and proper. The scope and object of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. It is also notable that such power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, therefore, it is not a case of lacuna. Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of RAJENDRA PRASAD VERSUS THE NARCOTIC CELL THROUGH ITS OFFICER IN CHARGE, DELHI 1999 (7) TMI 707 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that We cannot therefore accept the contention of the appellant as a legal proposition that the Court cannot exercise power of re-summoning any witness if once that power was exercised, nor can the power be whittled down merely on the ground that prosecution discovered latches only when the defence highlighted them during final arguments. The power of the court is plenary to summon or even recall any witness at any stage of the case if the court considers it necessary for a just decision. On cumulative consideration of the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity, which may be called for any interference, therefore, present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for re-examination of the complainant, the alleged misuse of applications to delay proceedings, and the legality of the trial court's decision to allow the re-examination. Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order allowing the respondent's application under Section 311 for re-examination of the complainant in a case involving dishonored cheques. The trial court allowed the application after the respondent obtained new documents related to the petitioner's firm, indicating the need for re-examination. The court emphasized the importance of discovering all relevant facts for a just decision and noted that the power under Section 311 must be exercised judiciously, not capriciously. Misuse of Applications to Delay Proceedings: The petitioner argued that the respondent filed multiple applications to prolong the case, including applications for rectification of documents that were rejected by the trial court and a co-ordinate bench. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's intention was to stall the proceedings and fill gaps in the case. The petitioner contended that the trial court did not exercise discretion properly in allowing the re-examination at a belated stage, highlighting the pending status of the case since 2012. Legality of Trial Court's Decision: Despite the absence of the respondent, the court considered the petitioner's arguments and the record. The court found that the trial court's decision to allow re-examination based on new documents related to the petitioner's firm was just and proper. Citing legal precedents, including judgments from the apex court and previous cases, the court affirmed that the trial court's order did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference. As a result, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision.
|
