9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I. Act ), against the first petitioner firm and the second petitioner, the proprietor. The complaint was taken on file as in C C. No. 119 of 1997 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Dindigul. The copy of the power of attorney was also filed in the case. Thiru L Subramaniam, Director of limited company has given the power of attorney. The notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was also issued on behalf of the proprietor of the mills to the petitioners. P.W. 1, Swami Anandan was also examined in court, P.W. 2 the personnel officer of the bank was also examined. P.W. 3 the agricultural officer was also examined. The respondent closed his side and the petitioners were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector Thiru L. Subramaniam. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives wide power to examine the witness at any stage of the enquiry provided it is essential to the juxtaposition of the case. 7. Heard learned counsel of both the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent cannot be allowed to examine a witness to fill up the lacuna. Already P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and the petitioners were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine one Thiru L. Subramaniam. The respondent also wanted to mark a document said to ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nandan. The sworn statement as well as in the evidence, Swami Anandan stated that he was authorised by Subramaniam and nowhere it is stated that the other directors gave power to Thiru L. Subramaniam on the basis of any document. Hence, after the closure of the evidence on the side of the respondent, he cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna and, as such, I am of the view that the trial court was not correct in allowing the application as it has caused prejudice to the petitioners. The order is liable to be set aside. 10. For the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed and the order passed by the trial court in Crl. M. P. No. 2410 of 1998 dated September 2, 1998, is set aside and the petition is dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M. Ps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
