LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-274

S. SUDARSHAN Vs. G.M. SUNIL KUMAR

Decided On December 12, 2019
S. Sudarshan Appellant
V/S
G.M. Sunil Kumar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - complainant. But the learned counsel for the respondent - accused is not present. Therefore, it is taken that there are no arguments on the part of the respondent - accused in C.C.No.3202/2014.

(2.) This petition is filed by the petitioner - complainant challenging the order dated 5.3.2016 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the applications filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and Section 63 of the Evidence Act in C.C.No.3202/2014.

(3.) The factual matrix of the petition is that the petitioner - complainant had initiated proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act in C.C.No.3202/2014. In the said C.C.No.3202/2014, the complainant - petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 63 of the Evidence Act to recall PW-1 for the purpose of marking photocopy of the postal acknowledgement. It was contended by the complainant that he had already adduced his evidence by examining himself as PW.1 and got marked documents. When he produced the photocopy of the postal acknowledgement in order to show the service of the legal notice on the accused, the same had been refused to be marked in evidence since the original was not produced. He had contended before the court below that he has issued legal notice to the accused through RPAD which was duly acknowledged, but however, he lost the original of the postal receipt and acknowledgement in order to prove the receipt of legal notice by the accused. He had also filed a sworn affidavit in compliance of Section 63 of the Evidence Act stating that he had lost the original postal receipt and acknowledgment. Despite of this contention taken by the complainant by filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Trial Court has dismissed the said application, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition.