Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 719
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Surender, J.
Vemula Polymers Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 8862 of 2022
Decided On : 15-02-2023
K.Buchi Babu, Advocate, S.Sudershan, Advocate, Vijay B.Paropkari, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the principle that in a criminal case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, fairness to the accused and the relevance of evidence are crucial, and new evidence cannot be introduced after the accused has cross-examined and the witness has admitted to certain facts.
Headnote:
Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Admissibility of late-produced invoices in a case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order permitting the complainant to mark certain invoices, produced after the completion of arguments and cross-examination, in a case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's attempt to introduce new invoices after the accused had cross-examined and the witness had admitted payment of the outstanding debt was impermissible.
Issues: Admissibility of late-produced invoices, relevance of evidence, and fairness to the accused in a criminal case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant cannot introduce a new case with late-produced invoices after the accused had cross-examined and the witness had admitted payment of the outstanding debt. The earlier admissions made by the witness regarding payment of the outstanding debt shall be considered, and the court cannot accept any new case made out by the complainant after completion of the cross-examination and defence of the accused.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was disposed of with the direction that any pending miscellaneous applications shall stand disposed.
JUDGMENT
K. SURENDER, J. - The petitioners are accused questioning the correctness of the order under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, passed by the XIV Additional Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in Crl.M.P.No.1351 of 2022 and 1352 of 2022 in C.C.No.146 of 2018 dtd. 7/9/2019, permitting the complainant to mark certain invoices which are not brought on record at the earliest point of time.
2. The said invoices were produced by the complainant after arguments were complete and the accused had already cross-examined and revealed their defence. Initially, when the notice was issued and referred to invoices mentioned, it was elicited during the cross-examination that the outstanding towards the said invoices have been discharged. Now the claim of the complainant is that the outstanding is not against the invoices that were earlier mentioned but the outstanding is with respect to the invoices which are now filed.
3. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused, the invoices mentioned in the notice were up to 26/4/2016 to 28/6/2016. As stated above, the complainant during the course of cross-examination admitted that the said outstanding against the said invoices were already paid. In the said circumstances, the complainant cannot come up with a new case after the accused had cross-examined and P.W.1 has admitted that the outstanding debt has already been discharged.
4. Learned Magistrate had thought it fit to admit the evidence and taken on record for the purpose of adjudication. Since the admittance of the documents are subject to its proof and relevancy, further the accused will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in respect of the said documents, I do not find any infirmity with the order of the learned Magistrate. Needless to say, the earlier admissions made by P.W.1 regarding payment of the outstanding towards invoices shall be considered by the learned Magistrate and the Court cannot accept any new case made out by the complainant after completion of the cross-examination and defence of the accused. The said aspect shall be kept in mind by the learned Magistrate.
5. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed off. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed.
