Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Jagdale Mirch Masala Products (India), filed a criminal writ petition challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaysingpur, dated 31st August 2009, which rejected their application (Exhibit-24) for permission to file an additional affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The case arose from a business transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.1, Kamal Foods. Cheques dated 30th March 2006 issued in favour of the petitioner were dishonoured due to stop payment instructions. A legal notice was issued and replied, and on 23rd June 2006, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed. The Magistrate issued process on 23rd July 2006. On 28th December 2008, the petitioner filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. During cross-examination, it was noticed that certain original documents were not on record, so an application (Exhibit-20) was filed to produce those documents, which was allowed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Exhibit-24 to file an additional affidavit to prove those documents. The Magistrate rejected Exhibit-24 but set aside an earlier order forfeiting the right to cross-examine the petitioner. The High Court considered the submissions of the petitioner's counsel, Mr. P.M. Arjunwadkar, who argued that the trial court took a hyper-technical view and that the evidence was not yet concluded. The High Court agreed, holding that since the documents were already permitted to be produced and the evidence was ongoing, the application should have been allowed to ensure a fair trial. The court set aside the impugned order, allowed the petition, and directed the trial court to permit the additional affidavit and grant an opportunity for cross-examination.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Examination-in-Chief - Additional Affidavit - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - The complainant sought to file an additional affidavit to prove documents that were already allowed to be produced. The trial court rejected the application on hyper-technical grounds. The High Court held that since the evidence of the complainant was not yet concluded and the documents were already on record, the application ought to have been allowed to ensure a fair trial and complete justice. (Paras 5-7) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - The case pertains to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where cheques were dishonoured due to stop payment instructions. The complainant filed an application to file an additional affidavit to prove documents that were permitted to be produced. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order, directing the trial court to permit the additional affidavit and grant an opportunity for cross-examination. (Paras 2-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the complainant's application for permission to file an additional affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief to prove documents that were already permitted to be produced on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 31st August 2009, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to file an additional affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and grant an opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine the petitioner on the said affidavit.
Law Points
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- Examination-in-Chief
- Additional Affidavit
- Fair Trial
