Karnataka High Court
Veerbhadreshwar Agro Agencies vs Mangalore Chemicals And Fertilizers ... on 4 January, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:492
CRL.P No. 10126 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10126 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. VEERBHADRESHWAR AGRO AGENCIES
S.N 5/1/71,
STATION ROAD, GUNJ BHALKI,
BIDAR - 585 328.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR. BASAVARAJ S PATIL.
2. BASAVARAJ S PATIL
PROPRIETOR,
VEERBHADRESHWAR AGRO AGENCIES,
S.N 5/1/71,
STATION ROAD, GUNJI BHALKI,
BIDAR - 585 328.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH D. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K
Location: High AND:
Court of Karnataka
MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED
LEVEL 11, UB TOWERS, UB CITY, 24,
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. PRASANNA K P.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. UDAY SHANKAR.R.M., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:492
CRL.P No. 10126 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU DATED
19.09.2023 ON IA UNDER SECTION 311 OF CRPC IN
C.C.NO.51354/2022.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the
Trial Court on the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 311 of 11 Cr.P.C. for recalling the DW1 for the purpose
of further cross examination in C.C.No.51354/202..
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent .
3. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner facing the
trial before the magistrate under Section 138 of NI Act on the
private complaint filed by the respondent. The complainant
himself examined as witness and got marked some documents.
After closing of the complainant's witness, the statement of the
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.
Thereafter, the petitioner himself was examined as D.W.1.
NC: 2024:KHC:492
During the cross examination, the counsel for complainant said
to be confronted two documents and marked as Exs.P.11 and
12, as it was admitted by the petitioner during the cross
examination. Subsequently, after the completion of the
evidence of D.W.1, the counsel for petitioner/accused filed the
application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for recalling the D.W.1
for the purpose of further cross examination for giving
explanation to the Exs.P.11 and 12, which came to be
dismissed. Hence petitioner is before this court.
4. Having heard the arguments, perused the records,
which reveals the deposition also produced by the learned
counsel, wherein the complainant has filed case under Section
138 of NI Act, for issuance of cheque which was dis-honoured
for want of funds. The plea was recorded and complainant
himself examined as witness and marked various documents
including invoices, regarding business transactions between the
complainant and accused. Subsequently, after completion of
the evidence of the complainant, statement of accused under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and defense was started,
while accused himself examined as D.W.1. During the cross
examination of the D.W.1 by the counsel for the accused,
NC: 2024:KHC:492
where the counsel for the complainant marked two documents
by confronting with the accused which was admitted by him in
the cross examination. Now the learned counsel submits the
documents ought to have marked subject to the objections,
even though these documents are not part and parcel of the
complaint or examination chief. Therefore, the Trial Court
committed error in marking the documents without any
objections. In support of his contention he has relied upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this court as well as
coordinate bench of this Court and the Supreme court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended
when the documents are admitted by the witness, in the
witness box it is an admitted fact and is marked as Esx.P11 and
12, he could have given explanation immediately, during the
cross examination, or in the re-examination for explaining the
documents, on what context he has signed it. Therefore, he
cannot recall himself for giving explanation for filling up the
lacuna, in the evidence adduced by him. Therefore, prayed for
dismissing the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:492
6. Considering the fact of the case, where it is well
settled any documents is marked even without objections and
the objection can be raised at any stage, even at appellate
stage, as per the judgment of division bench of this court
reported in 2017 (4) KCCR 3615, (DB), (Dharwad Bench)
in the case of Ramachandra Narayan Talawar Vs Kumar
Soukharya and Ors. But here in this case, where the
documents were confronted by the complainant counsel, to the
petitioner when D.W.1. was cross examined where the
deposition claiming says, D.W.1., admitted the documents and
the signature. Therefore, the Trial Court marked the
documents as Exs.P.11, 12, 11A and 12A respectively. Once,
the witness admitted the documents in the cross examination,
there is no question of marking the documents, subject to the
objection. It has to be marked as exhibits. In the cross
examination even any documents can be confronted by the
other side to the witness who is a maker of the documents
which is admissible under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence
Act. Such being the case, I am of the view, the petitioner
cannot recall himself for the purpose of giving explanation, if it
is allowed, nothing but filling the blanks as rightly contended by
NC: 2024:KHC:492
the counsel for the respondent. Therefore, I am of the view,
once the documents is admitted by the witness in the witness
box the Trial Court has no option to mark the same, once the
documents are admitted, the admitted documents cannot be
disputed. However it has to be appreciated by the Trial Court
during the course of judgment. Accordingly, I am of the view,
there is no error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the
application for recalling the DW1. Hence, this petition is devoid
of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV
CT:SK
