SIDDHARTH RAY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Siddharth Ray-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order 6.11.2013 (Annexure-P.1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to conduct re-examination of the petitioner, who had appeared as defence witness No.2 in a case titled as "B.S.N.L. v. M/s Data Access India Limited and others", has been dismissed.

(2.) From the record, I find that the accused examined himself as DW-2. When the case was fixed for further cross-examination, then an application was filed by the accused to re-examine himself after the crossexamination. A copy of the application has been placed on record as Annexure-P.4, in which it is stated that the above noted complaint is pending before the Court for that day and was fixed for remaining crossexamination of accused No.2 Shri Siddharth Ray (petitioner herein). It is stated in the application that recently the applicant/accused received certified copies of Form 23-AC and enclosures thereof under the Companies Act in respect of M/s Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, holding-company of M/s Data Access India Limited. The aforesaid Company belongs to the principal offender Mr. K.C. Palanisamy, who at the relevant point of time, was the Managing Director of M/s Data Access India Limited. It is mentioned in the application that through this document, it is clearly manifested that Mr. K.C. Palanisamy and his group Companies have acknowledged the contingent liabilities in respect of bouncing of cheques which are subject matter of various complaints initiated by BSNL/MTNL against M/s Data Access India Limited. It is also stated in the application that during the course of examination of the applicant/accused, the complainant has sought to bring about certain ambiguities with regard to the defence documents proved during examination-in-chief of the applicant. In order to clarify the aforesaid ambiguities in relation to the bank guarantees and the cheques in question, the re-examination of the applicant is necessary. This application was given on 11.2.2013, when the case was fixed for further cross-examination. The certified copy of the statement of DW-2, placed on record, shows that DW-2 was firstly examined-in-chief partly on 20.1.2011, then on 4.2.2011 and then on 26.4.2011 and it was completed on 30.8.2011. But his cross-examination was deferred and the witness was partly cross-examined on 26.9.2012 and then he was recalled for further cross-examination on 11.2.2013, on which date the crossexamination was completed.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, vide impugned order dated 6.11.2013 dismissed this application by stating that re-examination can be used only when some new fact emerged in cross-examination. It is also stated that law is well settled that tool of re-examination cannot be used to remove the ambiguities that have arisen in cross-examination.