Back
AMAN CHAUDHARY
Atul Sood – Appellant
Versus
Kotak Mohindra Prime Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background regarding dishonored cheque. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the need for further evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. principles governing the recall of witnesses. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. limitation on reopening cases due to counsel changes. (Para 11) |
| 5. affirmation of trial court's dismissal of applications. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
(Aman Chaudhary, J.)
The present petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for setting aside order dated 04.07.2016, Annexure P11, and order dated 20.07.2016, Annexure P12, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner under Sections 311 CrPC in Criminal Complaint No.34275 of 2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were dismissed.
2. Briefly put, the petitioner is alleged to have approached the respondent-company for the financial assistance and in order to discharge part of his legal debt/liability, the cheque bearing No.461687 dated 28.06.2013 issued in favour of the complainant for an amount of Rs.63,000/, was dishonoured vide memo dated 29.06.2013 with remarks "insufficient funds", that led to filing of the complaint in question.
3. Learn
Recall of witnesses should not be allowed in a routine manner, and the discretion to recall witnesses should be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice.
A change of counsel does not justify recalling a witness for further cross-examination; sufficient grounds must be shown to avoid delaying proceedings.
The essentiality of evidence is the touchstone for allowing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., and even if allowing the application amounts to filling up a lacuna, it should not be an absolute....
The court emphasized that the power to recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, ensuring it is essential for a just decision and not merely to fill gaps or delay proc....
The court emphasized that the power to recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, ensuring it is essential for a just decision and not merely to fill gaps in evidence.
The court upheld the dismissal of an application to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for judicious use of this power to ensure fair trials without unnecessary delays.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
