Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1955 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURTDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - discharge of a legally enforceable debt or not - cross-examination of the complainant on the question as to what was the source of money allegedly lent by her to the accused - HELD THAT:- The court enjoys vast power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine a witness provided same is essentially required for just decision of the case. Moreover, such exercise of power can be at any stage of inquiry, trial or proceedings under the Code, meaning thereby applicant can file an application at any time before conclusion of trial. Very object of Section 311 is to bring on record evidence not only from the point of view of accused and prosecution but also from the point of view of the orderly society. Otherwise also, it is well established principle of criminal jurisprudence that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are main purposes of underlying object of courts of justice. Hon'ble Apex Court in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and another, [2013 (7) TMI 1178 - SUPREME COURT], has held that power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon any person or witness or examine any person already examined can be exercised at any stage provided the same is required for just decision of the case. A fair trial is main object of criminal jurisprudence and it is duty of court to ensure such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. It has been further held in the aforesaid judgments that fair trial entails interests of accused, victim and society and therefore, grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right - In the case at hand, there is no dispute that complainant was cross-examined by accused but perusal of Annexure P-3 i.e. cross-examination, conducted upon complainant clearly suggests that counsel representing accused failed to cross-examine complainant on material points. Though, accused by way of cross-examination of complainant has made an endeavour to prove that no cheque was issued by him but no suggestion qua the same was put by the counsel to the complainant. Similarly, suggestion was put to the complainant that accused had not signed the cheque but signatures on cheque were never put to complainant by accused. Having carefully perused averments contained in the application filed under Section 311 CrPC and discrepancies in cross-examination of complainant pointed out by the learned counsel representing the accused, this Court is inclined to agree with the submissions having been made by learned counsel representing accused that relevant material could not be brought on record inadvertently by the learned counsel representing the accused before court below - this Court has no hesitation to conclude that learned court below miserably failed to look into/consider the averments contained in the application vis-à-vis cross-examination of complainant already conducted by accused. Application allowed.
|