Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Balu Bajirao Shinde, challenged an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patoda, in Summary Criminal Case No. 477 of 2010, which allowed respondent No.2 (Ankush Motiram Gite) to re-examine himself to prove a document. The case arose from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner on 16.10.2010. Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit of evidence on 24.02.2012 and was cross-examined by the petitioner. He then adduced evidence of his witnesses on 20.04.2013 and filed a pursis for closing evidence. Subsequently, he filed applications for examination of bank officers, which were allowed, and also called the Manager of State Bank of India, Patoda Branch, to prove documents related to the cheque. On 26.06.2019, the trial court allowed respondent No.2 to re-examine himself to prove a document. The petitioner contended that the trial court did not consider the provisions of Section 311 CrPC and wrongly allowed the application. The High Court examined the scope of Section 311 CrPC, which empowers the court to summon and examine any person for a just decision. The court noted that the re-examination was to prove a document and that the petitioner would have an opportunity to cross-examine. The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order and dismissed the petition, upholding the order for re-examination.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Re-examination under Section 311 CrPC - Just Decision - The court considered whether re-examination of complainant after closure of evidence is permissible to prove a document. Held that Section 311 CrPC confers wide discretion on court to summon and examine any person for just decision, and re-examination is allowed to fill lacunae and ensure justice. (Paras 2-5)
B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Evidence - The complainant sought re-examination to prove a document related to the cheque. The court held that allowing re-examination does not cause prejudice to accused as opportunity for cross-examination is available. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the complainant to re-examine himself under Section 311 CrPC to prove a document after closure of evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing re-examination of respondent No.2 under Section 311 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 311 CrPC
- re-examination
- just decision
- lacunae
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 138
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (08) 12
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1706 of 2019
Mr. K.R. Doke, Ms. R. P. Gour
The State of Maharashtra, Ankush S/o Motiram Gite
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging order allowing re-examination of complainant under Section 311 CrPC in a summary case under Section 138 NI Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the trial court order allowing respondent No.2 to re-examine himself.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that the trial court wrongly allowed re-examination after closure of evidence without considering Section 311 CrPC.
Previous Decisions
Trial court allowed respondent No.2 to re-examine himself to prove a document on 26.06.2019.
Issues
Whether the trial court's order allowing re-examination under Section 311 CrPC was justified.
Whether re-examination after closure of evidence is permissible under Section 311 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the trial court did not consider Section 311 CrPC and wrongly allowed re-examination.
Respondent No.2 sought re-examination to prove a document necessary for just decision.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 311 CrPC confers wide discretion on the court to summon and examine any person for a just decision. Re-examination of a complainant to prove a document is permissible even after closure of evidence, as it serves the ends of justice and does not cause prejudice to the accused, who retains the right to cross-examine.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patoda, District Beed in Summary Criminal Case No. 477 of 2010 dated 26th August, 2019, whereby respondent No.2 is allowed to re-examine himself to prove the document mentioned in the application.
It is contended that the trial Court has not considered the provision of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and wrongly allowed the application.
Procedural History
Respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act on 16.10.2010. He filed affidavit of evidence on 24.02.2012 and was cross-examined. He adduced witness evidence on 20.04.2013 and filed pursis for closing evidence. Later, he filed applications for examination of bank officers, which were allowed. On 26.06.2019, the trial court allowed his application to re-examine himself. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 1706 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 311
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
