KUNWARLAL RAWAT Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 10/11/2018 passed by Special Judge, Betul in S.T. No.203/2012 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for taking documents on record, has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, in short, are that Police Station Betul Bazar registered an FIR under Section 409 and 420 of IPC against the present petitioner, on the basis of the complaint filed by Anup Kumar Choudhary, Branch Manager of the Society named as "Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samitee Sahara Betul" on 25.02.2011. In the complaint, complainant alleging that petitioner, being Branch Manager of the Society, misappropriated Rs.6,76,291/- of the Society during his working tenure, who retired on 30/06/2007. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed. After framing the charge prosecution examined its witnesses. After examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the case was fixed for defence evidence. Before this, petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that he received two receipts (Pramara) of the amount which was mentioned in the FIR and allegation against the petitioner was that he has misappropriated the amount. The petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall witness Anoop Kumar Choudhary (PW-11) for further cross- examination and he also wants to seek explanation on both the receipts, but learned trial Court dismissed the application for taking the documents on record and recalling Anoop Kumar Choudhar (PW-11) for further examination vide order dated 10/11/2018.

(3.) The petitioner has filed this application on the ground that the petitioner has been charged for misappropriation of the amount of the society at the relevant time, when he was posted as Branch Manager of the Society. Audit mentioned four amounts to which two amounts are pertaining to the receipts which the petitioner wants to present before the Court, are necessary documents. The petitioner also submitted that two receipts which are pertaining to the charge were not in possession of the petitioner. Sub Registrar, Society, Betul provided copy of that documents vide letter date 01/11/2011. That documents submitted by Anoop Kumar Choudhary (PW-11) to the Sub Registrar, Society in a civil case. If those documents were submitted before the Police, this amount would not include in the embezzlement amount. These documents are necessary for fair adjudication of the matter. The petitioner is having documents which he wants to submit in his favour, therefore, for that, cross- examination of Anoop Kumar Choudhary (PW-11) is necessary. Thus, the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner, therefore, prays to set aside the impugned order and permitted the petitioner to submit the documents in further cross-examination of Anoop Kumar Choudhary (PW-11) on that point.