9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner herein invented the said documents only in the year 2020 in order to fill up lacunae. The impugned order is well-reasoned and well-founded and it does not warrant interference by this Court. Thus, the petitioner failed to make out any ground warranting interference by this Court and, therefore, the present criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed. Petition dismissed. - CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.613, 628 AND 681 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2021 - HON BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Petitioner Advocate : Chandrasen Law Offices COMMON ORDER: All these Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioner - complainant in C.C.No.149 of 2016 under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as Ex.P17 in C.C. No.149 of 2016. But, it has not filed copy of deed of partnership since the same was filed in civil case. Later, attested copy was obtained and the same is being filed along with authorization letter in favour of PW.2. With the said contentions, the petitioner herein filed the above said three applications to re-open, to receive and to recall PW.2 for the purpose of marking the said documents. iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, accused therein, have opposed the said applications on the ground that the petitioner herein has filed the said applications at belated stage, only to fill up lacunae. The petitioner did not mention any reason, much less satisfactory reason and, therefore, the said applications are liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. There is difference in page number etc. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present criminal petitions. 5. FINDING OF THE COURT: i) A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein has filed the complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offence under Section - 138 of the Act, 1881 in the month of August, 2015, and cognizance was taken in 2016 and summons were issued to the accused. As per the list of documents appended to the said complaint, the petitioner filed as many as seventeen (17) documents. Initially, Mr. K. Giri, Accountant of the petitioner s firm, was authorized to represent the firm and to file complaint. Accordingly, he filed the complaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot authorized to represent the petitioner s firm before the Court and to file the complaint. The authorization given to him was not filed. According to the petitioner, the said Giri left its office and, therefore, he was substituted by one Mr. S. Maheshwar, who was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, even PW.1 was also not properly authorized to represent the case. After examination of PW.1 since he died, Mr. Ashok Garg, Manager of the petitioner s firm, stepped into shoes of PW.1 and accordingly he was examined as PW.2. According to Accused Nos.1 and 2, they took a specific plea that Mr. Giri as well as PW.1 was not properly authorized to represent the petitioner s firm. To overcome the said l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of PW.2, the complaint was filed by the petitioner through Mr. K. Giri, Accountant in August, 2015. It is the specific case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein that the said Giri is not having authorization to file complaint on behalf of the petitioner firm. It is also the specific contention of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner firm is not being represented by a proper person and they have not filed deed of partnership. A perusal of the deed of partnership would reveal that there is no stamp of any Civil Court and it is only a Photostat copy. It is also relevant to note that PW.2, husband of one of the partners of the firm, has also signed the said deed of firm in the capacity of LA Holder / Manager. Even then, the petitioner did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ategorically held that power to recall the witness is to be exercised with circumspection and only with the object of arriving at a just decision of the case and the same should not prejudice the accused and should not permit to fill up the lacuna by the prosecution. The said principle was also followed by the Uttarakhand High Court in Vipin v. State of Uttarakhand 2018 Crl.L.J. 150. viii) In view of the law laid down by the Apex court, coming to the case on hand, as discussed above, the petitioner did not file the authorization letter given by it in favour of PW.2 and also the deed of partnership. The authorization given in favour of PW.2 was dated 10.04.2002 itself. The deed of partnership is dated 01.04.2002. Despite giving opport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
