GOVIND LAL SONI Vs. TEXMACO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 18,8.2004 by which an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/accused to summon a hand-writing expert and to recall PW-1 & PW-2 for cross-examination has been rejected. On 29.1.1998, the complaint under Sections 447/406/408 IPC read with Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner, Govind Lai Sonj. As per the complaint, the complainant company is the proprietor of textiles mill known as M/ s.Birla Textiles Mills Limited, Birla Lines, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-11007 and has various housing colonies at Old Birla Lines, New Birla Lines, etc. and the accused, who joined as an employee of M/s. Birla Textiles Mills on 7.6.1988 was allotted residential accommodation NO.85-A, Shivaji Lines, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-11007, on account of his employment by an allotment letter dated 1.8.1988 and could retain the accommodation only during his employment with M/s.Birla Textiles Mills. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused, Govind Lai Soni, was an employee till 3.9.1997when his employment was terminated and, therefore, he became legally liable to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the premises in question to the complainant. The complainant makes a prayer that the accused be directed to hand over the residential accommodation withheld by him and further that he be tried and punished in accordance with law. It may be mentioned here that there are allegations in the complaint as to how M/s.Texmaco, the complainant/respondent No.1 herein, became the proprietor of M/s.Birla Textiles Mills and how all contracts, deeds, agreements of M/ s.Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills came to be effective for and against M/s. Texmaco Ltd. Those allegations are not relevant for the disposal of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

(2.) From the trial court record it appears that the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was given to the accused/petitioner on 26.3.1999 and examination of witnesses began on 6.9.1999. The complainant's evidence was concluded on 7.1.2003. It appears that the petitioner absented from the proceedings on two subsequent dates and his statement could be recorded only on 2.5.2003. He wanted to lead evidence. Defence evidence was to be produced on 19.1.2004. The petitioner instead of producing defence evidence moved an application for dismissal of the complaint. The case was then adjourned to 16.2.2004 and it was ordered that the application for dismissal of the complaint would be considered at the time of final arguments. On the next date, i.e., 16.2.2004, defence witness was not produced and an adjournment was again granted. On 9.3.2004 four defence witnesses were examined . Further adjournment was granted on. 5.5.2004 and again on 24.5.2004. On none of the two dates any defence witness was produced. The default continued for subsequent dates also till the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on 12.8.2004. It is contended in this application that the counsel for the accused could not properly cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses on material points and, therefore, it has become necessary to summon the witnesses again for the purpose of confronting them on various material points. Further it is contended in this application that the letter of allotment dated 1.8.1988 was not signed by him and the allotment letter is forged & fabricated and manufactured document. He contends that he is an independent lawful tenant in the quarter in question and, therefore, PW-1 & PW-2 be recalled for the purpose of cross-examination and the accused be also allowed to summon hand- writing expert in order to prove as to whether the allotment letter was forged and fabricated. This application was disposed of by the impugned order dated 18.8.2004. The trial court observed that the accused actually wanted to re-open the entire case. Since the accused himself had stated that he had gone to the office to surrender possession but could not meet anyone he thereby admitted the claim of the complainant about the liability of the accused to surrender possession on the termination of his service. The trial court observed that the application had been filed only in order to prolong the litigation and hence dismissed the application.

(3.) Before this court it is contended by the petitioner/accused that the learned trial court, namely, ACMM, was wrong in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Reference has been made to certain authorities to support the plea.