High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07.11.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAMCriminal Revision Case Nos.1406 to 1408 of 2007and Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2007Hari Nivas TradersRep. by its Proprietor, A.Natarajan,S/o. Avinasiappa Gounder18, V.K.R. Thottam, P.S.Sundaram Road,Tiruppur - 1.. Petitioner in all the Crl.R.Cs./ (Accused)-Vs.-1. M/s. S.J.L.T. Textiles Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, V.Jegatheesan2. M/s. S.J.L.T. Textiles Ltd., Depo Agent, S.Malarvizhi Both are represented by their Power of Attorney Agent, E.K.P.Sampanthan.. Respondents in all the Crl.R.Cs. (Complainant)Prayer: Criminal Revision Cases filed under Sections 397 and 401 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure to eschew the re-examination of P.W.1dated 02.07.2007 made in C.C.Nos.35, 36 and 37 of 2006,respectively, on the file of the Second Additional District MunsifCourt, Erode.For Petitioner in all the Crl.R.Cs. :Mr. N.ManokaranFor Respondents in all the Crl.R.Cs. : Mr. A.Ramesh for M/s. Ram and Ram https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N O R D E RThe petitioner in all the above criminal revision cases is thecomplainant in C.C.Nos.35, 36, 37 of 2006 respectively pending onthe file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, forthe the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).2. Earlier, at the stage of arguments, petitions were filed bythe complainant to recall P.W.1 and to mark the deed of power ofattorney dated 24.01.2001 and those petitions came to be dismissed.Aggrieved by that the complainant filed Criminal Revision CaseNos.1217, 1219 and 1221 of 2005 and by a common order dated28.11.2006 passed therein, a learned Judge of this Court has set-aside the order of the learned Magistrate and allowed the revisioncases with a direction that the complainant shall be permitted torecall P.W.1 to produce the power of attorney deed dated 24.01.2001and the respondent/accused be given opportunity to cross-examine onthat point. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, P.W.1 wasrecalled and he was cross-examined. During the course of cross-examination, questions have been put to P.W.1 as to whether anyboard resolution has been passed authorising the filing of casesrelating to the dishonour of the cheques. P.W.1 has answered inaffirmative, but has stated that such resolution has not beenproduced. When further being cross-examined suggesting that no suchresolution has been passed, the said suggestion was denied.Contending that an ambiguity has arisen in the evidence elicitedfrom P.W.1 and to clarify the same P.W.1 should be re-examined,Court has permitted the re-examination of P.W.1 and during re-examination the board resolution dated 13.10.2000 as Ex.P-22 (inC.C.No.35 to 37 of 2006) was sought to be marked and hence the saidexhibits have been marked subjected to objection. Being aggrievedby the recalling of P.W.1 and the permission given to mark the saiddocuments, the accused has filed the above criminal revision cases.3. Heard Mr.N.Manokaran learned counsel for the petitioner ineach of the petitions and Mr.A.Ramesh, learned counsel for therespondents in each of the petitions.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Courtby its order dated 28.11.2006 passed in Criminal Revision CaseNos.1217, 1219 and 1221 of 2005 permitted recalling of P.W.1 onlyfor the limited purpose of producing power of attorney deed dated24.01.2001 and the accused was given liberty to cross-examine him onthat aspect and therefore the Court below ought not to havepermitted the recalling of P.W.1 and allowed the marking of Ex.P-22though subject to objection. Learned counsel further submitted that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondent is seeking to produce the said documents only to fillup the lacuna in the evidence.5. Countering the said submissions the learned counsel for therespondents in each of the petitions submitted that during thecross-examination of P.W.1 on 03.10.2003, a question was put toP.W.1 as to whether any board resolution had been passed authorisingP.W.1 to file the complaint and to such a question, P.W.1 hadanswered that no such resolution had been passed till that date.But in his cross-examination on 02.07.2007 the question put to P.W.1was totally different; the question put to P.W.1 was that whetherany board resolution had been passed authorising the filing of casein respect of return of cheques. While answering that questionP.W.1 gave an affirmative answer, but it is further stated that theyhad not produced that resolution. At that point of time, a furtherquestion has been put to him suggesting that no such resolution hasbeen passed. According to the learned counsel, only to clarify theambiguity in the above said two answers elicited from P.W.1 on03.10.2003 and 02.07.2007 it had become necessary to recall P.W.1and clarify the same. Accepting the contention of the respondentthe Court below had permitted recalling of P.W.1 and marking of theboard resolution. Learned counsel further submitted that there isno irregularity or illegality in recalling P.W.1 and the question offiling up any lacuna does not arise.6. I have carefully considered the above said submissions madeby the learned counsel on either side, perused the answers elicitedfrom P.W.1 in his cross-examination on 03.10.2003 and on 02.07.2007.A perusal of the answers given by P.W.1 shows that there reallyappears to be some ambiguity and it is settled law that when suchambiguity arises in the answers elicited from the witnesses, it isthe right of the party calling the witnesses to clarify the same byrecalling and re-examining the witnesses. When the Court below wasof the opinion that there is ambiguity in the answers elicited fromP.W.1 and there is necessity to clarify the same and had permittedthe recalling of P.W.1 and marking of the said documents, this Courtexercising revisional powers should not ordinarily interfere withsuch powers. Only when the lower court's order having glaringdefect of a serious nature has resulted in grave failure of justiceor where there is glaring defect in procedure or manifest error on apoint of law which resulted in miscarriage of justice, revisionaljurisdiction should be invoked. In these cases no such miscarriageof justice has occasioned.7. In the considered view of this Court, by allowing therecalling of P.W.1 and marking of the said documents, no prejudicewhatsoever will be caused to the petitioner since the petitionerwill have his opportunity to further cross-examine P.W.1 on theevidence given by him during the course of his re-examination. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. In such view of the matter, the above criminal revisioncases fail and the same are dismissed. Consequently the connectedMPs are closed. Further, it is made clear that the Court belowshould give an opportunity to the petitioner to further cross-examine P.W.1 in respect of the answers given by P.W.1 during thecourse of his re-examination.9. Since the cases are pending before the Court below from theyear 2002, the Court below is directed to expedite the trial andconclude the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably withina period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.srkToThe Second Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.2 ccs to Mr.N. Manokaran, Advocate, sr. 66907, 669081 cc to M/s. Ram and Ram, Advocate, SR. 66816Criminal Revision Case Nos.1406 to 1408 of 2007and Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2007JRG (CO)kk 16/11