Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15690
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
M/s. Rege Engredea Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Crl.P.No.11301|Crl.P.No.11302|Crl.P.No.11303|Crl.P.No.11304|C.C.No.3871|C.C.No.3872|C.C.No.3873|C.C.No.3874
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri H.Yogesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Sri B.Arjun Rao
The court upheld that reopening evidence and rectifying ledger discrepancies does not infringe on the rights of the accused under the NI Act.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Criminal petitions to set aside orders issued by the trial court regarding the reopening of evidence and receipt of new ledger accounts - Allegations of misuse of cheques and invalidity of claims regarding legally enforceable debt addressed - The court determined that reopening evidence and recalling the witness would not cause prejudice to the accused. (Paras 7-17)
(B) Principle of Law - The court upheld that while the prosecution can amend or provide additional evidence, it must not prejudice the rights of the accused. (Paras 13-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contended that allegations under Section 138 NI Act were misused by the complainant and presented evidence of prior payments contradicting the claims made in trial.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the reopening of evidence to correct ledger discrepancies does not infringe on the rights of the accused, thus affirming the trial court’s decision.
Issues: Whether allowing amended evidence at this stage by the trial court would unfairly disadvantage the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court’s discretion to allow evidence should be exercised judiciously and that minor rectifications do not amount to a detriment to a fair trial.
Result: The Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of petitions filed and context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legitimacy of reopening evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's observation on precedents regarding witness summoning. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's discretion in evidence handling and complaint validity. (Para 16) |
| 5. final ruling on the appeal. (Para 17) |
COMMON ORDER:
Crl.P.No.11301 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.260, 261 and 259 of 2024 in C.C.No.3871 of 2019 by the learned XVI Additional Judge- cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’).
2. Crl.P.No.11302 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.255, 253 and 254 of 2024 in C.C.No.3872 of 2019 by the learned XVI Additional Judge- cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’).
3. Crl.P.No.11303 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.257, 258 and 256 of 2024 in C.C.No.3874 of 2019 by the learned XVI Additional Judge- cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’).
4. Crl.P.No.11304 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.263, 264 and 262 of 2024 in C.C.No.3873 of 2019 by the learned XVI Additional Judge- cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’).
5. Since the petitioner is the accused in all the petitions, they are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order. Heard the submissions of Sri H.Yogesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Arjun Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
6. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the calendar case before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
7. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the allegations are under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act, 1881’) and that the accused company has given two cheques towards security and but not towards legally enforceable debt but that the complainant company has misused the cheques and filed the case under Section 138 NI Act, wherein the matter is at the fag end of trial i.e. 313 Cr.P.C. examination also got completed, then the accused company filed an application for defence evidence and he submitted during the course of his evidence that he has paid some amounts and then PW1 has filed reopen, recall and receive documents petitions to cover up the lacunae, which were allowed by the trial Court. He further submitted that the complainant has filed the case with a malafide intention and that now if another opportunity is provided to PW1, she may cover up the lacunae and gain unlawfully. Through the said petitions, the complainant intends to rectify the ledger accounts and file the new ledgers. Already ledgers have been placed on record but now the complainant has taken a plea that some mistakes have crept in the ledgers and have rectified the ledgers and intends to file the new ledgers, which is not permissible in the eye of law. He further submitted that the accused has already paid the amounts to the complainant and that the accused is discharged and that the notice issued under Section 138 of NI Act is not at all valid. He further submitted that the complainant has filed promissory note along with the new ledger with the petitions and the said promissory note also proves that the complainant intentionally wants to prejudice the rights of the accused and that the said promissory note is not at all issued by the accused. He therefore, prayed to set aside the orders of the trial Court.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the accused intends to adduce evidence with regard to the errors that crept in the ledger accounts which came to their
