GAHC010129472025 2026:GAU-AS:1364 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.Pet./1494/2025 NABAJYOTI KALITA SON OF SRI GANGADHAR KALITA, R/O P.D. CHALIHA ROAD, 1ST BY LANE, SILPUKHURI, P.O. AND P.S. CHANDMARI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM VERSUS AMIT GOYAL AND ANR S/O SRI JAIPRAKASH AGARWAL (GOYAL) PROPRIETOR OF M/S BALAJI ISPAT, NAU PUKHURI ROAD, TINSUKIA, R/O GANDHI PARK ROAD, P.O. P.S.

AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM

2:M/S BALAJI ISPAT (A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI AMIT GOYAL (SITUATED AT OPPOSITE MAYUR HOTEL NAU PUKHRI ROAD TINSUKIA TOWN P.O.

P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K DAS, O ASSUMI Advocate for the Respondent : MR D KALITA(R-1,2), MS R KOUR(R-1,2)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

ORDER

Date : 27-01-2026 Heard Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2.

2. This criminal petition under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is preferred to assail an Order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate [S], Tinsukia [‘the Trial Court’, for short] in N.I. Case no. 137/2016. By the Order dated 22.11.2024, the Trial Court has allowed the complainants’ side to recall and re-examine one prosecution witness, P.W.2 [Prasant Kr. Singh, Assistant Manager, Punjab National Bank] for producing a certificate as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence, Act, 1872.

3. The respondents herein as complainants have instituted a complaint case before the Trial Court alleging commission of an offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments [N.I.] Act, 1881, as amended, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as the accused. The complaint case has been registered and numbered as N.I. Case no. 137/2016. In the complaint, it has been stated that the complainant no. 1, that is, the respondent no. 1 herein is the proprietor of the complainant no. 2 firm, that is, the respondent no. 2 herein [hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’, for ease of reference].

4. In the complaint, it has been asserted that two cheques for amounts of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively were issued by the accused in favour of the complainant from a bank account maintained by the accused in Maligaon Chariali Branch, Guwahati of HDFC Bank Ltd. towards partial discharge of liability. The complainant has alleged that the accused used to purchase TMT Bars on credit from the complainant in the ordinary and usual course and the cheques were given towards payment of a part of the outstanding dues. The complainant has alleged that when the cheques were presented for collection at its bank, that is, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tinsukia Branch, they were returned unpaid on ground of insufficient fund stop payment instruction. The complainant has asserted that it had followed requisite formalities to institute the complaint.

5. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Trial Court issued process against the petitioner for his appearance as an accused in connection with N.I. Case no. 137/2016. Upon receipt of process, the petitioner entered appearance and denied the accusation when the offence was explained to him by the Trial Court. The complainant side had, at first, submitted evidence on affidavit of the complainant as P.W.1. Upon closure of evidence of P.W.1 after cross- examination, the second prosecution witness, P.W.2 was summoned from the Punjab National Bank, Tinsukia Branch where the cheques were presented for collection, to adduce evidence. P.W.2 was examined and cross-examined on

19.06.2024 and thereafter, he was discharged.

6. Subsequently on 18.07.2024, a petition was filed by the complainant side before the Trial Court for recall and re-examination of P.W.2 as on 19.06.2024 when the P.W.2 produced the Statement of Account, such Statement of Accounts was not accompanied by a Certificate under Section