TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he powers to be unlimited, but the inbuilt inherent limitation takes its colour and shape from the stage or point of time of its exercise, commensurately with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity and desirability, to fulfill the task or achieve the object. The Sine qua non of an order under this Section is a consideration by the court that the production of the documents concerned is desirable and necessary for the purposes of the trial. Whether a document should be summoned or not, is essentially discretion of the trial Court - The Apex Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs Anr. Vs. L.R. Malwani Anr. [1968 (10) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT] has held that except for very good reasons, the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Revision No.58/2019, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable and also order dated 28.5.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Complaint Case No.461/2016 has been confirmed, whereby three applications filed by the petitioner under section 311of Cr.P.C., section 91 of Cr.P.C. and section 243 (2) of Cr.P.C. have been dismissed. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the respondent no.2 filed a complaint on 3.3.2016 against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inant. Moreover, the notice was not sent on the proper address nor the same was received by him. In such circumstances recalling the witness is necessary. 4. The petitioner also moved another application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning the documents i.e. the income tax return filed by the complainant which are relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The third application moved by the petitioner was under section 243 (2) of Cr.P.C. for examination of the signature and the ink, date and amount mentioned in the cheque in question from Forensic Science Laboratory Bhopal which is requisite in the present case. 5. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 28.5.2019 dismissed all the three applications in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held as under:- ... In section 311 the signficant expression that occurs is 'at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code'. It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind . 12. In the case of Ratanlal Vs Prahlad (2018 (1) MPLJ (Cri) (SC) 1951) has held that power of Court to recall or re-examine any person already examined must be exercised only for strong and valid reasons, with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the Court ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... astava. In such a situation to ascertain the financial condition of the complainant, such documents are required to be summoned for the purpose of just and proper adjudication of the dispute. 15. The respondent no.2 submitted that the application has been filed for the sole purpose of delaying the trial. Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that initially burden is on the respondent no.2 to prove his case and secondly several opportunities for cross-examination were granted to the petitioner and vide order dated 30.10.2018 the right of defence has been closed and the matter is fixed for final arguments. The evidence has been completed and the ruling produced by the petitioner are of no assistance. 16. Heard the learned counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below. 20. In view of the aforesaid, the trial Court has considered the necessity of the documents to be produced in its proper prospective and has exercised its discretion in rejecting the application for the reasons mentioned therein. 21. In view of the above, no apparent jurisdictional error appears to have been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. warranting interference or exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 22. So far as rejection of application under section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the said application was moved on the ground that it is important to get the ink and signature of the so called agreement examined from Forensic Science Laboratory, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
