AJAY JAIN Vs. PURSHOTTAM NATH JAIN & SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this revision petition impugning the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by learned Trial Court whereby his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to resummon the defence witness was dismissed. The circumstance giving rise to this petition needs to be referred in some detail for the reason that not only the legality and validity of the impugned order needs to be examined in this revision petition but also the manner in which the trial has been conducted by learned Trial Court. This is a case requiring exercise of inherent power vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for not only giving effect to the order under Code of Criminal Procedure but also to secure the ends of justice. The procedure followed in this case by learned Trial Court is such that it has rendered the accused, who is petitioner before this Court, virtually defenseless. A complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed by the respondent/complainant against the present petitioner. After the cross examination of the complainant was completed on 15.04.2011, the learned Trial Court posted the case for defence evidence without examining the accused recording that in view of the latest case law, statement of accused was not required.

(2.) THEREAFTER , on application of the accused, witness from HDFC Bank was ordered to be summoned for 24.08.2011. Though the witness was present, learned counsel for the accused was not available due to illness. The learned Trial Court, while declining the prayer of the accused for adjournment, discharged the witness and closed the defence evidence posting the case for final arguments. On the next date of hearing, an application to resummon the witness from HDFC Bank was filed by the accused but the same was also dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this revision petition.

(3.) THIS Crl. Rev. P. No. 478/2011 has provided a window to this Court to peep into the functioning of learned Trial Court who was dealing with large pendency of cases under Section 138 NI Act. The procedure being followed by learned Trial Court in conducting trial of these cases is neither in consonance with the summary procedure prescribed under Section 143 of Negotiable Instrument Act nor in accordance with Chapter XXI of Cr.P.C. laying down procedure for summary trial or under Chapter XX for summons trial cases. The guidelines/procedure laid down by this Court in Rajesh Agarwal vs. State & Anr. : 171 (2010) DLT 51, were infact intended to guide subordinate judiciary as 'Light House' so that the huge pendency of cases under Negotiable Instrument Act can be tackled in such manner that the very object of provisions of Section 138 NI Act i.e. expeditious disposal in cheque bouncing case could be achieved, have also not been followed in letter and spirit.