IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Balbir Singh - Appellant
Versus
Kulwant Singh - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 36367 of 2016, 36489 of 2016
Decided On : 31-01-2019
Additional Defence Evidence - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure - 391, 311 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Section 391 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their interpretation in allowing the petitioner to lead additional defence evidence. The court highlighted the distinction between unsoundness and instability of mind and emphasized the necessity of additional evidence for securing the ends of justice. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and others was referenced to support the petitioner's plea for leading additional evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheques. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him. The petitioner appealed and sought to lead additional defence evidence under Sections 391 and 311 of the Cr.P.C. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the applications, leading to the present petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court partly allowed the petitions, setting aside the order dismissing the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and upholding the order dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Lower Appellate Court was directed to record the statement of the witnesses by granting 03 effective opportunities to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of additional defence evidence under Sections 391 and 311 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioner's plea for recalling the complainant for cross-examination based on his mental state at the time of the alleged transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had the right to lead additional defence evidence to prove his mental instability at the time of the transactions. The judgment in Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and others was cited to emphasize the necessity of additional evidence for securing the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The petitions were partly allowed, setting aside the order dismissing the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and upholding the order dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Lower Appellate Court was directed to record the statement of the witnesses by granting 03 effective opportunities to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in these petitions is for setting-aside the impugned order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the Lower Appellate Court vide which the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Sections 391 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') praying for leading additional defence evidence and re-calling the respondent/complainant for cross-examination was dismissed in complaint No.1150 dated 25.07.2014 and complaint No.1351 dated 25.07.2014.
2. The impugned order passed in criminal complaint No.1150 of 2014 is challenged in CRM-M No.36367 of 2016 whereas the order passed in criminal complaint No.1351 of 2014 is challenged in CRM-M No.36489 of 2016.
3. Brief facts of the case as taken from criminal complaint No.1150 of 2014 are that the respondent/complainant - Balbir Singh filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the NI Act') with the allegations that the complainant was known to him and as per an agreement to sell dated 23.08.2013, the accused agreed to sell 03 shops in village Kheri Gujran, District Patiala and received a sum of Rs.10 lacs in presence of marginal witnesses of the agreement to sell. It was agreed that the sale deed will be registered in favour of the complainant upto 30.10.2013. Later on, the complainant express his inability to get the sale deed executed and in the month of April, 2014 in presence of one Davinder Kumar, it was settled that the petitioner/accused will return the amount of Rs.13.50 lacs and he issued 02 cheques bearing No.579343 dated 16.04.2014 for a sum of Rs.6.50 lacs (subject-matter of complaint No.1150 of 2014) and No.579344 dated 20.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.7 lacs (subject-matter of complaint No.1351 of 2014). On presentation, both the cheques were dishonoured by the bank with the remarks 'payment stopped by the drawer's and funds insufficient'. After serving the legal notice, the respondent filed 02 complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, in which the petitioner was summoned and after the respondent/complainant led his evidence by examining himself as CW1 and producing on record the relevant documents and income-tax return, the case was fixed for recording the statement of the petitioner/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he made the following statement:-
"I have been falsely implicated in present complaint by the complainant. The complainant has not capacity to advance any money to me. The complainant being in police department by treating and over owing me had taken blank cheques. The complainant used to threaten me whenever I requested him to return blank cheques as he was working in police department. No notice was received by me. The complaint filed by complainant is false one."
4. Thereafter, the trial Court vide judgment dated 23.07.2015 allowed both the complaints thereby holding the petitioner guilty for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and vide order of sentence of even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay a compensation equivalent to half of the cheque amount. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved separate applications under Section 391 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. for allowing the petitioner to lead further additional defence evidence to the following effect:-
(a) That the petitioner remain under treatment of various doctors as he was not mentally stable during the year 2014-15 and in order to prove his medical record, he want to examine 03 witnesses in his defence i.e. (i) Dr. Suman Goel from Goyal Psychiatric Centre, 85, Punjabi Bagh, Patiala along with original treatment record of patient Balbir Singh. (ii) Dr. Anshuman Mittal from Ashadeep Clinic, B-24/129, Kishan Nagar, Lower Mall, Patiala along with complete record of patient Balbir Singh. (iii) Dr. Puneet Phull from Columbia Hospital, Near Phat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.