Case Note & Summary
The applicants, M/s. Nexus Minmet Merchandising Private Limited and its directors, were facing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by respondent No.2, M/s B. S. Ispat Limited. During the recording of further examination-in-chief of the complainant on 07/08/2013, the applicants' counsel raised objections to the marking of certain documents produced by the complainant. The trial court did not decide those objections at that time. Subsequently, the applicants filed an application (Exh.45) praying that the objections be decided. The trial court dismissed that application, holding that mere marking of documents as exhibits does not amount to admitting them in evidence and that the complainant would need to prove them, so objections could be decided at the conclusion of the trial. Aggrieved, the applicants approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court held that the trial court's approach was contrary to settled principles of law. It observed that objections to the admissibility of documents must be decided at the time of marking, not deferred to the final stage. The court noted that the trial court's order caused prejudice to the applicants as it left them uncertain about which documents would be considered. The High Court allowed the application, set aside the trial court's order, and directed the trial court to decide the objections afresh in accordance with law, preferably within two months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Objections to Marking of Documents - Deferral of Decision - Objections to admissibility of documents must be decided at the time of marking, not postponed to final stage - Trial court's order dismissing objections on ground that mere marking does not amount to admission in evidence is contrary to settled principles of law - Held that such procedure causes prejudice to the accused and is unsustainable (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's procedure of deferring objections to marking of documents to the conclusion of trial is legally sustainable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Final Decision
Application allowed. Impugned order dated 07/08/2013 passed by trial court is quashed and set aside. Trial court directed to decide the objections afresh in accordance with law, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Objections to marking of documents must be decided at the time of marking
- not deferred to final stage
- mere marking as exhibit does not amount to proof
- trial court's approach of deferring objections is contrary to settled law
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 94
Criminal Application (APL) No. 80 of 2014
Shri B. N. Mohta for applicants, Shri Mukund Ikre for respondent No.1, Shri Masood Shareef for respondent No.2
M/s. Nexus Minmet Merchandising Private Limited, Ayush Suresh Lohiya, Suresh Pralhadrai Lohiya
State of Maharashtra, M/s B. S. Ispat Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application under Section 482 of CrPC challenging trial court's order dismissing objections to marking of documents in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
Remedy Sought
Quashing of trial court's order dated 07/08/2013 dismissing objections to marking of documents and direction to decide objections then and there
Filing Reason
Trial court deferred decision on objections to marking of documents to conclusion of trial, causing prejudice to applicants
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed application Exh.45 on ground that mere marking as exhibit does not amount to admission in evidence and objections can be decided at final stage
Issues
Whether the trial court's order deferring objections to marking of documents to the conclusion of trial is legally sustainable
Whether the trial court's approach causes prejudice to the accused in a Section 138 NI Act case
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants: Objections to marking of documents must be decided at the time of marking; deferring them causes prejudice and is contrary to settled law
Respondent No.2: No prejudice caused; trial court kept issue open; objections were not properly raised on the date of marking
Ratio Decidendi
Objections to the admissibility of documents must be decided at the time of marking, not deferred to the final stage of trial. Deferring such objections causes prejudice to the accused as it leaves uncertainty about which documents will be considered. The trial court's approach of dismissing objections on the ground that mere marking does not amount to proof is contrary to settled principles of law.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial Court simply dismissed the objections on the ground that mere marking as exhibits of the documents does not amount to admitting the documents in evidence and the complainant would be required to prove the documents in accordance with law and, therefore, the objections can be decided at the conclusion of the trial, which procedure is not in consonance with the settled principles of law.
In my view, the trial Court has adopted a procedure which is not in consonance with the settled principles of law. The objections to the marking of documents must be decided at the time of marking, not deferred to the final stage.
Procedural History
Complaint under Section 138 NI Act filed by respondent No.2 against applicants. During further examination-in-chief on 07/08/2013, applicants raised objections to marking of documents. Trial court did not decide objections then. Applicants filed application Exh.45 for decision on objections. Trial court dismissed Exh.45 on 07/08/2013. Applicants filed Criminal Application (APL) No. 80 of 2014 under Section 482 CrPC before High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
