2024 (1) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - need of new evidence - evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case or not - HELD THAT - The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated - The exercise of power under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case. The power under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. - In present case, Trial Court, after going through statement Ex. DW-3/A and after taking into consideration evidence before it, including Ex.DW-3/A, and considering the rival contentions of the parties, concluded that it appeared to be just and important to allow the application for adjudication of the complaint and, therefore, after recording that though application was filed at a belated stage, in the interest of justice, allowed the application with further order to compensate the complainant with costs of ₹ 1,000/-. The Trial Magistrate has not committed any irregularity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order, and, therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - complainant-petitioner has failed to make out a case to rebut the satisfaction recorded by the Trial Magistrate with respect to necessity of allowing the application for just decision of the case. The present petition is dismissed and disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the power of the Court to summon additional witnesses, and the just decision of the case based on the evidence presented.

Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner, who is the complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, challenged the order allowing the respondent-accused to lead further evidence and cross-examine the complainant. The respondent-accused, son of another accused in a related case, sought to re-examine the complainant and present additional evidence from banks. The Trial Magistrate allowed the application, considering it essential for a just decision despite being filed at a belated stage. The petitioner contended that the application was filed to delay the trial, but failed to provide substantial grounds against the Trial Magistrate's satisfaction regarding the necessity of the additional evidence.

Legal Provisions and Court's Discretion:
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon or re-examine witnesses if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The Court must exercise this discretionary power judiciously to establish the truth and ensure a fair trial. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the power under Section 311 should be used to find the truth and not to prejudice any party. The Court should ensure that the evidence to be tendered is relevant to the issue and allows the other party an opportunity for rebuttal.

Judicial Analysis and Conclusion:
The Trial Magistrate, after considering the evidence and the necessity of additional evidence, allowed the respondent's application under Section 311. The Court found no irregularity in the Magistrate's order and upheld the decision, stating that it was not a fit case for intervention under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant failed to challenge the Trial Magistrate's satisfaction regarding the need for the additional evidence for a just decision. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Trial Magistrate's decision to allow the application for further evidence.

Conclusion:
The judgment upheld the Trial Magistrate's decision to allow the respondent-accused to lead additional evidence and re-examine the complainant under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized the importance of exercising the discretionary power under this section judiciously to ensure a fair trial and establish the truth for a just decision in the case.