SATYENDRA KOSHA Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has been filed seeking directions to the respondents No.1 and 2 to enquire and investigate in the matter as to how certain documents which were not exhibited were placed in the record of the trial Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in a complaint case pending against him before the competent Court under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The petitioner has filed this petition stating that on 6/5/2015, the respondent No.3- complainant appeared before the Court below for his examination-in- chief and he exhibited seven documents which were marked as Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit-P-7. On 26/9/2015, upon completion of the cross- examination of the respondent No.3, his evidence was closed and the matter was proceeded further. At the time of his examination-in-chief i.e. on 6/5/2015, Shri Santosh Kumar Kol, was the Presiding Judge, however, on the date of conclusion of the cross-examination of the respondent No.3-complainant, the Presiding Officer was Dr. Umashankar.

(3.) The respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their reply controverting the allegations made by the petitioner. The respondents have also brought on record the conduct of the petitioner to show that he being an accused before the trial Court is trying to prolong the proceedings. The original complaint was filed before the trial Court in the 2008 and till 2014, the petitioner did not appear. He appeared before the trial Court only when the proceedings under Ss. 83 and 84 of Cr.P.C. for declaring him as a proclaimed offender were initiated including the attachment of his property. The petitioner earlier filed application under Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act questioning the correctness of Exhibit P-8 before the trial Court with a prayer to get it examined by the hand writing expert and the said application was rejected by the trial Court on 17/8/2017 and the order was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 6/11/2017. This Court in M.Cr.C. No.23223 of 2017 decided on 10/10/2018, also dismissed the petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner and noted that the said proceedings were taken up by the petitioner at the fag end of the trial, is nothing but to delay the decision of the case. It is the contention of the respondents that even as on 17/8/2017, the petitioner was aware of existence of Exhibit-P-8 and, therefore, he did not question the existence of the said document.