VILAS N PAWGI Vs. S LPILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner is an accused in a complaint filed by respondent under section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act. Parties led their evidence and thereafter present petitioner has been filed an application raising objection to the admissibility of two documents (i) the cheque in question and (ii) demand notice under section 138 of the Act on the ground that the said documents are not proved in accordance with provisions of Evidence Act. The Court rejected the said application by holding that the objection shall be decided at the final decision of the matter. In reply to the said application the complainant had asserted that he has proved the documents and the documents have been permitted to be exhibited by the Court. At a later point of time, realising that the question of admissibility would cause prejudice to the complainant in the event of the trial Court holding that the documents are not proved in accordance with provisions of Evidence act, the complainant filed an application under section 311 of Criminal Procedure code with a view to recall the witness so that documents could be proved as required by law. The trial Court being of the view that for reaching a just decision in the case it is desirable to permit the recall of the witness has allowed the same. It is this order by which the petitioner is aggrieved. Incidentally it may be stated that revision application preferred by the present petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of failure on the part of complainant to prove the two vital documents a right has been accrued in favour of the accused and allowing the application under section 311 would cause utmost prejudice to the accused in the trial, hence takes exception to the order impugned. Reliance is placed by the trial Court on a judgment in the case of U. T. Of Dadra and Haveli and Anr. Vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh chauhan, 2006 7 SCC 529. The law in this regard is laid down in para 12 of the judgment which reads thus: