SABYASACHI CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application challenging the orders passed in Complaint Case No. C/45 of 2010 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 including the order dtd. 7/12/2017 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta thereby allowing the complainant/ opposite party to adduce further evidence on her behalf at the stage of argument.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in this case while the opposite party no. 2 is the complainant. The opposite party no. 2 initiated a proceeding in 2010 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the purported dishonour of a cheque of an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs. After a considerable delay, trial started. On a date fixed for argument i.e., on 3/8/2017, the private opposite party filed an application for purportedly adducing further evidence. It was her claim that a trade licence of the complainant 's concern ought to be exhibited during trial as the same was a public document. The prayer was allowed and this became the bone of contention between the two sides.

(3.) Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted as follows. First, the application was not in form. Instead of praying for re-examination of a witness, the complainant prayed for marking a document as exhibited on the ground that it was purportedly a public document. The same could only be resorted to by invoking Sec. 294 of the Code. In fact, the complainant did not pray for re-examination or for exercise of powers vested under Sec. 311 of the Code. The petitioner 's prayer for marking a public document as an exhibit at the stage of argument was beyond the scope of such application. Although a Court had ample powers to intervene under Sec. 311 of the Code even at a mature stage, the impugned order could not be sustained as there was no finding or discussion as to why adducing of such evidence was essential for arriving at a just decision. The complainant 's intention was only to fill up the lacuna in this case, which was not permissible in law. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon 'ble Apex Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and Anr., 2013 (4) Supreme 621. More than anything else, the accused had already disclosed his defence and by effective cross-examination had elicited doubts in the mind of the Court about the prosecution case. After all these, allowing a prayer to mark documents as exhibits would not serve the purpose of justice.