SAT DEO JAIN Vs. INVESTMENT POINT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 14/02/2000 passed by the court of Shri San jay Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner u/s 311 Criminal Procedure Code for recalling the complainant for the purposes of further cross-examination. Brief facts are that: on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent u/s 138 Criminal Procedure Code petitioner was summoned and is facing trial. , The respondent in support of its case examined Mr. Sanjay Bansal, its authorised representative in addition to the bank witnesses.Petitioner cross-examined the authorised representative. Thereafter statement of the petitioner was recorded. He also summoned some of the bank officials. As per the defence of the petitioner the cheque in question was issued on the basis of the statement of account given by the complainant/Respondent which is Ex. Public Witness 1/B. It is'argued that during defence evidence of Bank officials it was revealed that the statement of account Ex Public Witness--1/B was wrongly prepared by the complainant and some of the cheques purported to have been issued and encashed by the petitioner were in fact never encashed by him and that some of the cheques were "Bearer cheques" which were encashed by the complainant or his authorised representative. The petitioner's application for recalling the complaint was dismissed by that trial court observing:-

(2.) Trial court appears to have erroneously understood the ambit and scope of Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code which is settled by several authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union, of India AIR 1991 SC 1999, which reads

(3.) Learned counsel for, the respondent argued that the petitioner has been deliberately delaying the trial; the fact that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner on the basis of the statement of account was well within the knowledge of the petitioner right from the very beginning. Therefore, at the time of cross-examination representative of the respondent/complainant, the petitioner should have been summoned relevant bank record and cross examined on all the aspects of the case.