Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shankar Lotlikar, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the Court of the Third Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao. The petitioner had lodged a complaint against the respondent, Pundalik Venktesh Verlekar, for dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 9,00,000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Five cheques were issued by the respondent in discharge of his liability, which were dishonoured. Process was issued, and an order under Section 143A of the Act was made directing the respondent to deposit Rs. 1,80,000 (20% of the cheque amount). Since the amount was not deposited, an order under Section 421 CrPC was passed for recovery, which was pending. The petitioner as complainant had filed his affidavit-in-evidence. The respondent/accused sought time to cross-examine the complainant, but the trial court closed the evidence of both parties and directed the matter to proceed for arguments. The High Court heard Shri S.S. Kakodkar for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Gawas for the respondent. The petitioner contended that the complaint was lodged for dishonour of cheque and that the trial court erred in closing evidence without giving an opportunity to cross-examine. The respondent argued that the order was justified as the accused had been given sufficient time. The High Court analyzed the facts and held that the accused must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the complainant's affidavit-in-evidence. The court noted that the order closing evidence was passed on the same day the affidavit was filed, which was premature. The High Court set aside the order dated 14.10.2019 to the extent it closed the evidence of the complainant and the defence, and remanded the matter back to the trial court to proceed from the stage of cross-examination of the complainant. The court directed the trial court to grant an opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine the complainant and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Closure of Evidence - The trial court closed the evidence of the complainant and the defence without granting the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant's affidavit-in-evidence, which was filed on 14.10.2019. The High Court held that the accused must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine, and the order closing evidence was premature and unjustified. (Paras 2-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Recovery of Interim Compensation - Section 143A Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 421 CrPC, 1973 - The trial court had directed the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount under Section 143A, and upon non-compliance, issued a warrant under Section 421 CrPC. The High Court noted that the recovery proceedings were pending and did not interfere with that order, but set aside the closure of evidence. (Paras 2-3) C) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC, 1973 - The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the order closing evidence and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the accused's right to cross-examine is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in closing the evidence of the complainant and the defence without providing an opportunity to the respondent/accused to cross-examine the complainant's affidavit-in-evidence, and whether the order directing recovery under Section 421 CrPC was sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 14.10.2019 to the extent it closed the evidence of the complainant and the defence, and remanded the matter back to the trial court to proceed from the stage of cross-examination of the complainant. The trial court was directed to grant an opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine the complainant and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 143A Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 421 CrPC
- 1973
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 227 Constitution of India
- Evidence Act
- 1872
- Cross-examination
- Right to fair trial
- Opportunity of hearing
