RANAM INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for challenging the order dated 14.1.2014 (Annexure P -7) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar in Criminal Complaint No.810/2/2008 instituted on 4.9.2008 titled as "M/s Chugh Plastic Vs. M/s Ranam Industries and others" under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act whereby application filed by them for recalling the order dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate declaring the cross -examination of complainant Paramjit Singh as 'nil', was dismissed.

(2.) THE aforementioned criminal complaint was instituted by respondent No.2 with the allegations that the cheque issued by the petitioners in discharge of their liability was dishonoured by their banker with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement". The said complaint had reached the stage of recording of evidence. On 9.11.2010, CW1 Paramjit Singh was present in the Court for his cross -examination. The case was called repeatedly and the accused were directed to produce their counsel for crossexamining him. The proceedings were adjourned, to be taken up, once again, at 12.00 noon. At that time, the defence counsel representing the petitioners appeared and requested for taking up the matter in the later part of the day as he was busy before some other Court. He undertook to positively cross -examine CW1 at 2.00 p.m. Despite the same, CW1 was not cross -examined when the file was again taken up at 2.00 p.m. Even the costs imposed upon the petitioners on the earlier date of hearing had not been tendered. Accordingly, vide order dated 9.11.2010, the trial Court found no ground for further adjourning the matter for crossexamination of CW1 and directed that his cross -examination be treated as 'nil'. The petitioners then filed an application dated 28.1.2011 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling CW1 Paramjit Singh for cross -examination but the same was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate on 14.1.2014. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) THE petition had come up for preliminary hearing on 6.2.2014 when after hearing counsel for the petitioners, notice was issued to respondent No.2. Upon service, the said respondent has put in appearance through its counsel. The counsel representing respondent No.2 states that he has no objection if prayer made by the petitioners for granting one more opportunity for crossexamining CW1 Paramjit Singh, proprietor of the complainant -firm, is granted, as according to him, the petitioners have been able to delay the conclusion of the trial for sufficiently long period of time. He has, however, submitted that the petitioners be burdened with costs.