The High Court of Madras recently dealt with a Criminal Original Petition filed by the complainant in a cheque bounce case, praying for setting aside the order passed by the Small Causes Court whereby the Court allowed an application seeking recall of PW1 for his cross-examination.
Background of the case:
The petitioner/complainant submitted that the respondent/accused had adopted dilatory tactics in the cheque bounce case. The evidence of PW1 had been closed because of the accused’s continuous absence. At the stage when the case was reaching its finality and had been posted for final arguments by the trial court, the accused, under the pretext of settling the matter, delayed the process further and then filed an application under Section 311 of CrPC to recall PW1 without any sufficient cause.
However, the trial court allowed the application recording that “It is clearly seen that the petitioner is dragging the case. However, the opportunity must be given to other side to establish their case, hence in the interest of justice, this petition is allowed on cost Rs.2,000.”
High Court’s Observation:
The bench, presided over by Justice Dr G. Jayachandran, noted that even after being afforded four opportunities, the accused did not examine PW1.
The High Court further noted that in the application under Section 311 CrPC, “only specific reason provided by the petitioner and the Court is of the view that for arriving at just decision, witness has to be recalled. In this case, in the impugned order, there is no such reason assigned by the trial Court.”
Hence, the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the recall order passed by the Trial Court.
Bench: Justice Dr G. Jayachandran
Order Date: 23rd August 2024
Read the Order @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
