Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE
Tejraj, S/o Hiralal Chavan – Appellant
Versus
Malganga Dairy Pharm – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2019, thereby dismissed the revision of the petitioner arising out of order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned JMFC, below Exh. 58 in SCC No. 1440 of 2016.
3. In short, it is the case of the petitioner/accused that Respondent No.1 Complainant firm has filed SCC No. 1440 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of Cheque bearing No.200014, dated 24.02.2016 for an amount of Rs.11,39,661/- drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Ravivar Peth, Pune. After service of summons, the petitioner/accused appeared in the matter. In order to prove the accusation, Respondent No.1/complainant firm filed Exh. 19 evidence affidavit of one Shri Sandip Laxman Mapari, the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant and proved certain documents i.e. Exh.24- Cheque in question, Exh.25- Bank memo, Exh. 26- Stat
The court emphasized the accused's right to examine witnesses in defense without needing to specify their relevance, enabling fair trial rights.
The accused has the right to present defense witnesses in a trial, and the trial court must issue summons unless there are valid grounds for refusal, ensuring that fair trial rights are upheld.
The failure of the complainant to tender for further cross-examination led to the discarding of his evidence, which invalidated the judgments of conviction.
Witnesses already examined by one party cannot be summoned by the opposite party without valid justification, as this could lead to an abuse of process and compromise the fairness of the trial.
The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence, witness testimony, and the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act in establishing the guilt of the accus....
The accused has a fundamental right to defend themselves, including summoning witnesses, to ensure a fair trial as enshrined in Section 243(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
(1) Recall of witness – Exercise of this power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case.(2) Witnesses examined by one party cannot be allowed to be examined on behalf of opposite....
The judgment established that while complainants may use affidavits for testimony, accused individuals must testify orally, ensuring their fundamental rights in a criminal trial are upheld.
Section 311 CrPC reads as power to summon material witness, or examine person present.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
