2024 (6) TMI 699 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - dismissal of petitions filed by the accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C, Section 311 Cr.P.C and Section 254(2) Cr.P.C respectively - rebuttal of statutory presumptions - HELD THAT - It is relevant to note that, after dismissal of these two sets of petitions, one to recall PW-1 and another to produce documents, the petitioner/accused had filed another set of petitions under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C to summon Managers of his Banks, where he maintains his accounts, to prove, how much money really transferred from the complainants into his account. The trail Court had dismissed these petitions also on 03/02/2024 on the ground that these facts can be established by the accused by examining himself as defence witness. The trial Court has opined that, summoning the Bank Managers to give evidence is not necessary, when there is nothing to indicate that the Bank Managers refused to given the bank statements of the accused. The dismissal of the petitions filed under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C is also under challenge in the third set of Criminal Original Petitions. This Court is of the view that, when the complaint lack details about the manner in which the liability arose to issue the subject cheques and when the complainants admit that they are income tax assesses and they maintain bank accounts through which portion of the loan amount was transferred, then for proper appreciation of the facts can be done, only if the witnesses are recalled and confronted why they contradict their earlier admission and why they refuse to produce the documents as sought for by the accused. Expecting the accused to rebut the presumption, withhold the documents necessary for the proof of foundational facts will be unfair. Hence, the impugned order dismissing petitions filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C and Section 91 of Cr.P.C, dated 27/09/2023 is set aside. This Court confirms the order of the trial Court dismissing the petitions filed under Section 254(2) of Cr.PC and the petitions filed challenging the said order dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of petitions under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
2. Dismissal of petitions under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
3. Dismissal of petitions under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of Petitions under Section 311 Cr.P.C.:

The accused filed petitions under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the complainants for further cross-examination, arguing that certain important questions were omitted which are crucial to discredit the witnesses. The trial court dismissed these petitions, stating no specific reasons were provided for recalling the witnesses and that the accused could establish his defense through his own witnesses and documents.

The High Court observed that the complaints lacked details about the manner in which the liability arose and noted the complainants' admissions during cross-examination about maintaining bank accounts and being income tax assessees. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the accused's right to adequately cross-examine the complainants, especially since they refused to produce their income tax returns and bank statements despite admitting to their possession. Thus, the High Court set aside the trial court's order, allowing the petitions under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

2. Dismissal of Petitions under Section 91 Cr.P.C.:

The accused also filed applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for the production of the complainants' Income Tax Returns and Bank Statements from 2018 to 2021. The trial court dismissed these petitions, reasoning that the accused admitted partial liability and could prove his case through his own bank statements without compelling the complainants to produce their documents.

The High Court found this dismissal unfair, noting that the accused needed these documents to rebut the statutory presumption and establish his defense. The Court highlighted that withholding these documents necessary for proving foundational facts would be unjust. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order dismissing the petitions under Section 91 Cr.P.C.

3. Dismissal of Petitions under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C.:

The accused filed another set of petitions under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. to summon managers of his banks to prove the actual money transferred from the complainants into his account. The trial court dismissed these petitions, stating that the accused could obtain and mark his bank statements through his own witnesses and that summoning the bank managers was unnecessary.

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, agreeing that the accused could rely on his bank statements marked through his witnesses. The Court noted that Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. allows the Magistrate to summon witnesses suo moto or on petition at any stage of the trial, and the dismissal of these petitions would not bar the Court from exercising this power later if necessary. Therefore, the High Court confirmed the trial court's order dismissing the petitions under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C.

Conclusion:

The High Court allowed the petitions challenging the dismissal of applications under Sections 311 and 91 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the accused's right to a fair trial and the necessity of cross-examining the complainants and obtaining relevant documents. However, it dismissed the petitions challenging the dismissal of applications under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C., affirming the trial court's reasoning and noting that the accused could still obtain his bank statements through other means.