Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 159
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Jay Sengupta, J.
Kuldip Kedia - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Another - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 376 of 2020
Decided On : 27-02-2020
Dhiraj Trivedi, Advocate, R. Pandey, Advocate, Baisali Basu, Advocate, S.S. Imam, Advocate, S. Kundu, Advocate
The importance of concluding proceedings and the relevance of evidence to the present proceeding.
Headnote:
Defence Evidence - Criminal Revision - The court dismissed the application challenging the order of the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, affirming the order of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta. The petitioner failed to adduce defence evidence despite multiple opportunities, and the document referred to by the petitioner was deemed irrelevant to the proceeding.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner failed to adduce defence evidence despite multiple opportunities and sought to produce a document pertaining to a family settlement, which was deemed irrelevant by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application challenging the order and directed the Learned Trial Court to hear the arguments of the accused afresh before passing judgment.
Issues: Failure to adduce defence evidence, relevance of the document pertaining to a family settlement, and the need for a fresh hearing of the arguments by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of concluding proceedings and the relevance of evidence to the present proceeding. It also directed the Learned Trial Court to hear the arguments of the accused afresh before passing judgment.
Final Decision: The application challenging the order was dismissed, and the Learned Trial Court was directed to hear the arguments of the accused afresh before passing judgment.
JUDGMENT
Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 21.1.2020 passed by the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2019, thereby affirming the order dated 19th October, 2019 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta in Complaint Case No. C/677/2011 under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submits as follows. In the course of trial, an opportunity was given by the learned Trial Court on 17.08.2018 to the accused-petitioner to adduce defence evidence. However, since the same was not availed of by the petitioner, the Learned Trial Court closed his evidence on 30.08.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revisional application before the Learned Sessions Court. The same was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court thereafter gave three (3) opportunities to the petitioner to adduce defence evidence but due to some unforeseen difficulties the same could not be done by the petitioner and the evidence was closed. The petitioner was constrained to file an application under Section 311 to examine the accused as witness. This was turned down by the Learned Trial Court. When it comes to question of evidence to be adduced by the defence, it is of utmost importance for the sake of the liberty of an individual and the same cannot be denied because of a few adjournments or a little delay in course of the proceeding. The petitioner wanted to produce a document pertaining to a family settlement that could show that the petitioner was not really in charge of the business at the material point of time. The petitioner might, in the process, bring further materials into light. A single day's opportunity may be granted to adduce defence evidence.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party submits as follows. Several opportunities were given to the accused-petitioner to adduce defence evidence, yet he has failed to do so. He has tried to drag the proceeding on some pretext or the other so that the ultimate goal of seeking justice may be defeated. The document that the petitioner now wants to prove is not at all relevant to the present proceeding. The opposite party is not a family member of the petitioner. What private arrangement the petitioner and his family members had entered into between themselves regarding their business is not at all relevant in the present proceeding. So, even on merits the application under Section 311 of the Code cannot be entertained.
4. I have heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsels for the petitioner and the opposite party and have perused the revisional application and the connected application.
5. It appears that the petitioner had indeed got numerous opportunities to adduce defence evidence, yet kept on neglecting to adduce defence evidence and praying for adjournments. This went on for an unduly long period. There has to be an end to everything. The petitioner cannot be just take the process of Court for granted and continue to protract a proceeding.
6. Even on merits, the document that the petitioner has referred to hardly any bearing on the present proceeding. The complainant is not a family member of the accused. If any private arrangement has been arrived at between the family members of the accused in respect of the business of the company in question the same is not at all relevant to the present proceeding, especially when the same is not reflected in the records of the Registrar of Companies.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
8. At this stage, learned Counsels for the parties submit that arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have already been completed and the matter is fixed for delivering judgment. Learned C
