2023 0 Supreme(HP) 249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Sumitra Devi - Petitioner
Kapoor Chand - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 79 of 2020
Decided On : 16-05-2023
Point of Law: Section 311 CrPC reads as power to summon material witness, or examine person present.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 145 - Indian Evidence Act, 187 - Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 311 - Dishonor of cheque - Re-examination - Petitioner approached Court against rejection of application filed by her for her reexamination – It would be necessary to find out truth by obtaining proper possible evidence on record and for that purpose re-examination of petitioner on this issue is permissible - Para 18.
Finding of the Court :
Court is of opinion that for ascertaining correct status of respondent so as to arrive at just and fair conclusion, it would be necessary to find out truth by obtaining proper possible evidence on record and for that purpose re-examination of petitioner on this issue is permissible and petitioner, for mistake on part of Advocate for not praying her re-examination at time of cross-examination, should not be made to suffer and as such to this limited extent reexamination of petitioner may be permitted – Court is of considered opinion that petitioner may be re-examined with reference to status of respondent in reference to facts stated in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination with respect to that - However, complainant shall not be entitled to introduce any new issue or case in her cross-examination as it is neither prayer of petitioner not it can be permitted in facts and circumstances of present case.
Result: Petition disposed of.
Act Referred :CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.311EVIDENCE ACT : S.138NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT : S.138, S.145Cases Referred:
Advocate Appeared :For the Petitioner : Mr.Tejasvi Verma, Advocate.For the Respondent : Mr.Hoshiyar Singh Rangra, Advocate.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner, complainant in case No. 118-3 of 2013, titled as Sumitra Devi Vs. Kapoor Chand, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’), has approached this Court against rejection of application filed by her for her reexamination, vide order dated 28.1.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anni, District Kullu, H.P. (Trial Court).
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed before me.
3. Petitioner has preferred a complaint under NI Act for dishonor of cheque issued by respondent Kapoor Chand for payment towards her salary, claiming that the said cheque was issued by respondent as Director of BHK construction Company. An affidavit in evidence, in examination-in-chief, has been filed by the petitioner and thereafter, she was subjected to cross-examination on behalf of respondent, wherein at one place she had admitted it to be correct that respondent was also an employee of the Company like her. At the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes time of her cross-examination, no liberty was prayed by her counsel to re-examine her regarding this part of statement made by her in cross-examination as in examination-in-chief she had stated that respondent was Director of the Company. However, later on an application was filed on behalf of petitioner for her re-examination by proposing filing of an affidavit in re-examination, stating therein that respondent was Chairman of the Company and he had issued the cheque in her favour on behalf of Company under reference.
4. The aforesaid application was opposed by respondent on the ground that admission made by the petitioner with respect to status of respondent during cross-examination that respondent was an employee like her, is unambiguous and clear and, therefore, there is no question of allowing re-examination of the petitioner as proposed, as it would amount to fill up the lacuna and also prolonging of proceedings.
5. The trial Court after, considering pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2013) 14 SCC 461; Jamatraj Kewalji Govani Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 (SC) 178; U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and another Vs. Fatehsinh Mohansing Chauhan, (2006) 7 SCC 529; Iddar and others Vs. Aabida and another, AIR (SC) 2007 3029 and also judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Acura Glass Ti
Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas