KWSRANG DEBBARMA Vs. CHRISTIAN LITERATURE CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the Order, dated 10.06.2019, passed in C.R. Case No. 5606C /2017 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, (for short 'J.M. 1st Class'), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

(3.) The petitioner's contention, in a nutshell, is that the respondent/complainant filed the above noted C.R. Case No. 5606C /2017 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner/accused for dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs.27,23,495.36/- issued by him in favour of the respondent/complainant. In the said case, the learned J.M., 1st Class, at Guwahati, on consideration of the initial deposition of the respondent/ complainant, by order, dated 31.03.2018, took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons to the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused accordingly appeared before the learned trial Court on 11.06.2018 and denied commission of the offence. As such, the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the P.Ws 1 and 2. On 14.08.2018, P.W. 1 was cross-examined and discharged. Thereafter, when the matter was pending for cross-examination of P.W. 2, namely Manab Gohain, he filed additional/second evidence on affidavit, dated 03.10.2018 and the learned trial Court fixed 10.12.2018 for cross-examination of P.W. 2 although he had filed his evidence on affidavit on 24.01.2018. Therefore, on 10.12.2018, the petitioner/accused filed a petition being Petition No. 4310 raising objection against filing of second/additional evidence on affidavit by P.W. 2 and prayed not to keep the additional evidence on record and proceed further with the evidence on affidavit filed by him (P.W. 2) on 24.10.2018. The aforesaid petition was partly allowed and the said witness (P.W. 2) was cross-examined on the basis of his evidence on affidavit filed on 24.01.2018 and accordingly, he was discharged. The petitioner has contended that P.W. 2's second evidence on affidavit was received in contravention of the provisions under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the basic principle of the criminal jurisprudence. According to the petitioner, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the petition was filed on 10.12.2018 and the prayer in part was already allowed and P.W. 2 was cross-examined on the basis of his evidence on affidavit, dated 24.01.2018 and as such, additional evidence on affidavit filed on 03.10.2018, cannot be sustainable as one witness cannot file two evidence/additional evidence on affidavit at his own sweet will. Hence, the instant petition praying to set aside the impugned order as stated above.