CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION v. Sanatan Saha

(In short ‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of an order dated April 10, 2024 passed by 2 the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court at Sealdah, South 24 Parganas in connection with C. Case No. 195/1998.

2. By the said order impugned, the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., observing therein that the petition lacks clarity on how the mentioned documents could not be brought on record earlier and it is the clear attempt of the petitioner to fill up the lacuna, already pointed out by the defence during the trial. The learned Trial Court further held that the Court is not inclined to delay the argument in the case which is pending for more than 25 years any further. FACTS OF THE CASE: -

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the opposite party had dishonest intention from the beginning and with such dishonest intention, induced the petitioner to part with the valuable goods on the representation that the opposite party will pay the value of the goods by issuing cheques.

4. Two cheques amounting to Rs. 2,54,514/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- were issued for making payment towards goods supplied. Despite issuing those two cheques, the opposite party issued instructions to the bank for non-payment. Although the cheques 3 were issued in discharge of liabilities, no payment was made even after repeated demands by the petitioner.

5. The authorised representative of the petitioner company compelled to file a complaint case being C. Case No. 195 of 1998 before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah against the opposite party herein when the cheques were returned with the endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer”.

6. During trial, four witnesses on behalf of the complainant were examined and the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which was completed after a prolonged delay due to several adjournments taken by the opposite party. At the time of examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on September 19, 2019, the accused person falsely stated that he had no transaction with the petitioner and he had not issued any cheques in favour of the petitioner.

7. Subsequently, it had come to the notice of the authorised person of the petitioner company, as well as the present learned counsel appearing for the petitioner company, that inadvertently and fortuitously the invoices and lorry receipts were not exhibited during the trial. As such, the petitioner intended to bring those 4 invoices and lorry receipts to prove the transaction between the parties by adducing further evidence.

8. Accordingly, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was made on behalf of the petitioner company to file additional documents, i.e. invoices and lorry receipts, by producing its branch manager for proper and effective disposal of the aforesaid complaint case. However, the said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court, without any valid reason(s). If the invoices and lorry receipts are not produced before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner company will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any manner. Hence, this application. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: -

9. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the application should have been allowed by the learned Trial Court as the invoices and lorry receipts are essential documents to prove the transaction and supply of goods to the opposite party and to the just decision of the complaint case.

10. There is a statutory provision under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. by which any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a 5 witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined, and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.

11. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner is not to fill up the lacuna, but to discover the truth on a transaction between the parties by producing invoices and lorry receipts which ultimately prevent the miscarriage of justice. If this Court sets aside the order and allows the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, the opposite party will not be prejudiced and will be given the opportunity to cross-examine the recalled witnesses.

12. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments to support his contention as aforesaid: - i. Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell through its Officer in Charge, Delhi1, particularly in paragraph nos. 7 and 8; ii. Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.2, particularly in paragraph nos. 14, 15 and 17;