Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 965 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTPrinciples of Natural justice - reopening of evidence of the witness - case of petitioner is that sufficient opportunity is to be afforded to the petitioner to produce certain documents and to recall PW.1 for marking those documents by reopening the case as the said documents are essential to decide the real controversy between the parties - HELD THAT:- No doubt, Section 311 of the Code confers power on the Court to summon any witness or to examine any witness, who was present though not summoned or re-examine any witness subject to recording satisfaction by the Court. At the same time, the Law is wellsettled that this Court cannot exercise such power in casual manner and that the Court must take into consideration the consequence of allowing such applications at belated stage. Section 311 of the Code consists of two limbs. The first limb confers power on the Court to summon, recall and re-examine any witness already examined and record evidence of any witness who was present though not summoned, and the second limb of Section says that when the Court satisfied that the evidence of any witness is essential, the Magistrate may record reasons and recall any witness - The facts in the present case would not fall within the second limb; it would fall within the first limb. The petitioner did not explain the reason for his failure to file documents at the earliest stage and PW.1 was only a power of Attorney Holder of the complainant, whereas the documents pertain to the period prior to execution of Power of Attorney in favour of PW.1 by the complainant. Therefore, PW.1, at best, is entitled to adduce evidence which is within his knowledge after execution of power of attorney, but the documents sought to be produced before the Court below are pertaining to the period prior to execution of General Power of Attorney in favour of PW.1. Therefore, he is not competent to speak about the documents which are sought to be produced by the petitioner - PW.1. However, this Court cannot exercise power under Section 311 of the Code to reopen the evidence of any witness. When the Calendar Case is posted for judgment, filing petitions for reopening etc. does not arise, since the duty of the Magistrate is to pronounce the judgment without involvement of petitioner and respondent - thus, this is not a fit case to quash the impugned order passed by the Court below. Petition dismissed.
|