SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Ori) 429

A.K.MISHRA
Gongotri Heights Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sasanka Sekhar Mohapatra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, Advocate, D. Sahu, Advocate, D. Mulia, Advocate, M. Parida, Advocate, Santanu Ku Sarangi, Advocate, S. Sarangi, Advocate, A.K. Nayak, Advocate, S. Jain, Advocate
Cases Referred
Manju Devi vrs. The State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203
Mannalal Chamaria and Anr. vrs. State of West Bengal and Anr., (2014) 58 OCR 160 (SC)
Mannan Sk and others vrs. State of West Bengal and another, (2014) AIR(SC) 2950
Mina Lalita Baruwa vrs. State of Orissa and others, (2013) 16 SCC 173
Mohanlal Shamji Soni vrs. Union of India, (1991) Supp1 SCC 271
Natasha Singh vrs. CBI (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741
Rajaram Prasad Yadav vrs. State of Bihar and others, (2013) 14 SCC 461
Sabitha Ramamurthy and Anr. vrs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya, (2006) AIR(SC) 3086
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh vrs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158

JUDGMENT

A. K. Mishra, J. - In this proceeding U/s. 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2016 passed in 1CC Case No.1098/2014 by the learned JMFC, Bhubaneswar in allowing the prayer of the complainant to exhibit demand letter, postal receipt and its reply on recall as he could not exhibit the same in course of his examination-in-chief.

2. The present petitioners are accused persons in 1CC Case No.1098/2014. The opposite party was the complainant. The trial was proceeded for the offence U/s138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant was examined as P.W.1, cross-examined and discharged on 18.03.2015. Thereafter on some day, prayer was made to exhibit above documents on his recall. The accused persons filed objection.

    Learned JMFC by detailed order allowed the same stating that the evidence of P.W.1 was essential for the just decision of the case and such examination would not cause any prejudice to the defence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as no foundation was laid in the complaint petition and the documents were not filed till the impugned order, the defence was totally prejudiced by introduction of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top