2024 (1) TMI 438 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - rejecting the petitioner's prayer under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling of Prosecution Witness No. 1. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate concerned was pleased to reject the said application on the ground that by allowing the said application the petitioner herein could not be permitted to fill up the lacuna of the prosecution case to the disadvantage of the accused person in the said case, being the opposite party no. 2 herein. HELD THAT - In the present case, the documents sought to be brought on record by the petitioner by way of additional evidence are documents essential and thus relevant for arriving at a just decision in the case. The prayer under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been made in this case as soon as the documents were made available to the petitioner and the same are essential to aid in the discovery of truth. The documents in this case are necessary only with the object of proper proof of relevant facts in order to meet the requirement of justice. The reason for not being able to bring the present materials on record at the relevant stage has been satisfactorily explained and as such the Trial Court should have allowed the prayer under Section 311 Cr.P.C., considering the materials on record, while carrying out its function of administration of criminal justice to meet the ends of justice. The accused/opposite party herein shall have ample opportunity and the liberty to counter the materials to be brought on record by the petitioner. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code 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 - In the present case, the documents sought to be brought on record are essential for arriving at a just decision and as such is to be allowed for the ends of justice. Revision allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of petitioner's prayer under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Alleged commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Connection with Special CBI Case No. 22 of 2010.

Summary:

1. Rejection of Petitioner's Prayer under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioner, a private limited company, initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was for recalling and re-examining Prosecution Witness No. 1 to exhibit documents supplied by the CBI. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected this application on the grounds that it would fill up the lacuna of the prosecution case to the disadvantage of the accused and that the case was already fixed for argument.

2. Alleged Commission of an Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioner alleged that the opposite party no. 2 issued a cheque for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- which was dishonored due to "Funds Insufficient." A demand notice was issued but not replied to by the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner contended that the cheque in question was never seized by the CBI, contrary to the claim made by the opposite party no. 2 during her deposition.

3. Connection with Special CBI Case No. 22 of 2010:
Both parties are accused in Special CBI Case No. 22 of 2010, involving allegations of offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI conducted a search and seized multiple documents from the premises of the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner argued that the documents seized by the CBI, including the cheque book, did not include the cheque in question, which was part of the same cheque book but was issued and honored before the CBI raid.

Judgment:
The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the order dated 06.04.2023 by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Court found that the documents sought to be brought on record by the petitioner were essential for a just decision in the case. The Court directed the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate to permit the petitioner to bring in the documents on record as per Section 311 Cr.P.C. within six months from the date of the order. The judgment emphasized the broad and discretionary powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon and examine any material witness at any stage to aid in the discovery of truth and ensure justice.