Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Pratap @ Prakash Kripaldas Chugh, was the original complainant in a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, being Criminal Complaint No.4405/SS/2007. The complaint alleged that the respondent No.1, Manu Parumal Raghani, had issued a cheque which was dishonoured. During the trial, the complainant was examined-in-chief and was present on several dates. On 17th September 2011, the complainant was absent, and the trial court closed the evidence of the complainant and acquitted the accused. The complainant filed an application to recall himself for cross-examination, which was rejected by the trial court. The complainant then approached the High Court by way of a criminal application. The High Court heard the parties and granted leave. The court noted that the complainant had a valid reason for his absence on 17th September 2011, as he was unwell and had produced a medical certificate. The court held that the right to cross-examine is a valuable right and should not be forfeited due to a single absence. The court set aside the order of acquittal and remanded the matter back to the trial court with a direction to recall the complainant for cross-examination and then proceed with the case in accordance with law. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the hearing and dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 311 - Recall of Witness - Right to Cross-Examine - The complainant filed an application to recall himself for cross-examination after being absent on the date fixed for cross-examination. The trial court rejected the application and acquitted the accused. The High Court held that the right to cross-examine is a valuable right and should not be forfeited due to a single absence, especially when the complainant had a valid reason. The court set aside the acquittal and remanded the matter for recall of the complainant for cross-examination. (Paras 1-9) B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint - Cross-Examination - The complainant in a cheque dishonour case sought recall of himself for cross-examination. The High Court observed that the trial court ought to have allowed the application to recall the witness to give an opportunity to the complainant to prove his case, and the acquittal was premature. (Paras 4-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the complainant's application to recall the complainant for cross-examination when the complainant was absent on the date fixed for cross-examination and the accused had already been acquitted.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal application, set aside the order of the trial court rejecting the recall application and the consequent acquittal, and remanded the matter to the trial court with a direction to recall the complainant for cross-examination and then proceed with the case in accordance with law. The trial court was directed to expedite the hearing and dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Recall of witness under Section 311 CrPC
- right to cross-examine
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 138
- Section 311 CrPC
- opportunity of hearing
- ends of justice
