This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the accused, assailing the order dated 21.11.2009, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, in Complaint Case No. 174 of 2003, as well as the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Criminal Revision No. 66 (4) of 2009, rejecting the prayer of the accused to recall CW-1 for further cross-examination.

2. Heard Sri K Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P Bora, learned counsel for the sole opposite party. I have also perused the impugned orders.

3. The case has arisen out of a complaint filed by the opposite party under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the earlier round of litigation, the accused persons had filed a criminal petition praying for quashing of the proceeding and the said prayer was turned down by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.03.2007. While dismissing the SLP, the Apex Court further directed the trial Court to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 (four) months. The expectation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for expeditious disposal of the case has not been fulfilled and the case is still squeezed in the midst of interlocutory petitions.

4. As could be gathered from the documents annexed with the Criminal Petition the affidavit evidence of CW-1 was filed on 29.09.2008 and additional evidence was tendered on 23.06.2009 and on that day, CW-1 was cross-examined. Thereafter, CWs-2 and 3 were examined and cross-examined on 28.08.2009. Exactly after 2 (two) months of cross-examination of complainant witnesses the accused No. 3/petitioner filed a petition in the trial Court for recalling of CW-1 on various grounds and that petition was rejected on 21.11.2009. The said order of trial Court was assailed by way of filing statutory revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, and the revision application also came to be dismissed on 04.03.2010. The said Judgment of the Sessions Judge has been assailed in this case under the garb of Section 482 CrPC.

5. It may also be mentioned here that the certified copy of the order dated 04.03.2010 was obtained on 18.03.2010, but the Criminal Petition was filed in the High Court only on 22.07.2010. The reason for not filing the Criminal Petition promptly is that the petitioner was suffering from various ailments and was undergoing treatment. However, the nature of ailments and details of treatment have not been given in the criminal petition. A brief reference for delay in filing the criminal petition became necessary in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for expeditious disposal of the case. At this stage, it is also necessary to put on record that the petitioner was also reluctant to appear in the trial Court in person from the very beginning on the ground of her illness and she was insisting her representation by a lawyer under Section 205 CrPC. After rejection of the said prayer the order of the trial Court was challenged in the Sessions Court and also in the High Court. Even after the High Court's order, the accused did not appear and finally, the matter was referred to the High court by the trial Magistrate. The reference application was decided on 02.07.2008. Before that, the Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order on 24.07.2008, allowing representation of the accused by her counsel and only thereafter, the trial of the case proceeded.

6. Before giving any opinion about the legality and correctness of the impugned orders, it is necessary to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Krishnan -Vs- Krishnaveni, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241, wherein their Lordships have held that inherent powers conferred upon the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, should be exercised sparingly and cautiously. The relevant observations are reproduced below:

“Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document