Re-examination of witnesses is strictly permitted for clarification of cross-examination issues; introducing new documents afterwards undermines procedural integrity.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Petition to quash docket order - Authorization letter - The trial Court allowed the document to be received which the petitioners contended was an attempt to fill up lacunas post cross-examination - The petitioners argued the trial Court did not apply judicial mind and sought to substantiate claims with evidence previously admitted as non-existent. (Paras 1, 6, 9)

(B) Principles of Evidence - Re-examination - Permitted only to clarify doubts from cross-examination - Cannot be used to introduce new facts or amend previous admissions. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash a docket order allowing the introduction of a previously unsubmitted authorization letter in response to their claims that the witness had already admitted in cross-examination that no such document existed.

Findings of Court:
The trial Court's allowance of the document was deemed not illegal, affirming that corrections may occur even post-filing if necessary.

Issues: The core issues include whether introducing the authorization letter post-cross-examination constitutes an abuse of process and if the trial Court acted judicially.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that failing to produce the authorization letter at the appropriate time damaged the integrity of the cross-examination process and noted that re-examination should not enable parties to undermine their earlier admissions.

Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition for quashing a docket order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding admissibility of evidence. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's analysis of submissions and legal precedent. (Para 4 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. dismissal of the criminal petition. (Para 13)

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the docket order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.201 of 2022 in C.C.No.1558 of 2019 on the file of I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad.

2. Crl.M.P.No.201 of 2022 is filed by the complainant/2^nd respondent herein under Section 294 of Cr.P.C, to receive the original authorization letter issued by the Vice President (Finance) and Company Secretary, Sukjith Starch and Chemicals Limited. It is stated that the said document is necessary to be received and marked as exhibit in support of the evidence on behalf of petitioner and failure thereof would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner therein. As such, prayed the trial Court to receive the petition mentioned document.

3. In the counter filed by the respondents/accused it is stated that the document sought to be introduced is against the principles of equity and fair play as the witness has already been cross-examined at length on the concerned subject and the said document is filed only to fill up the lacunas and get rid of the admissions made in cross-examination. Pw.1 in cross- examination admitted that he has not filed any authorization letter. In view of the said admission, the said petition at the belated stage is not maintainable and the basic purpose of cross-examination will be defeated, and petitioner is making another attempt to substantiate his claim. As such, requested the trial Court to dismiss the said Crl.M.P.

4. After hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed Crl.M.P.No.201 of 2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G.V.S. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial Court without application of judicial mind went on summoning the petitioners herein since been arrayed in the Memo of parties despite the fact that the petitioners are neither the Managing Directors nor they are signatory to the cheque in question and in cross-examination, Pw.1 admitted that he cannot show any such document to prove authorization to depose as a witness of the complainant’s company. When he clearly admitted that there is no authorization letter, only to fill up the lacunas the petition was filed, which is against the settled principles of law. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pannayar vs. State of Tamil Nadu , (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 152 .

7. Learned counsel further contended that Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, provides that re-examination shall be directed to explanation of matters referred to in cross- examination, the same casts an embargo on the complainant since the said provision only enables explanation to the answers already given and that in no circumstances mean that complainant can wash off the admission given earlier in cross- examination. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment in Simrin Singh Vs Amrit Srinivasan , 2019 SCC Online Del 7177 . Learned counsel further submitted that Pw.1 in cross-examination clearly admitted that no authorization letter was filed by him to show that he is authorized to give evidence on behalf of complainant’s company. When he clearly admitted in cross-examination that no authorization letter is filed, filing a petition to receive the said authorization letter at a later stage is nothing but abuse of process of law and nothin