Pushkar Lal Dangi vs Narayan Lal
2022 Latest Caselaw 14981 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8166/2022

Pushkar Lal Dangi S/o Heera Lal Dangi, Aged About 40 Years, R/ o Kanpur Khera, Tehsil Girwa, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus Narayan Lal S/o Dalla Dangi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Kanpur Kheda, Near Maharaj Mandi, Tehsil Girwa, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Petitioner : Ms. Apeksha Chhangani Mr. Avin Chhangani For Respondent : Mr. MS Bhati, P.P.

Mr. Naresh Khatri

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 16/12/2022 Pronounced on 20/12/2022

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. petition may kindly be allowed; and

(a) The impugned order dated 19.01.2021, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases, No.1 Udaipur, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed.

Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent lodged a

complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-8166/2022]

1881 against the petitioner, whereupon a case bearing no.

16532/2015 came to be registered against him before the learned

Special Judicial Magistrate No. 1 (N.I. Act Cases), Udaipur.

Thereafter, during the course of trial, the complainant-respondent

in his cross-examination stated that his family had sold certain

lands, in lieu of a consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/-, out of which a

sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was given to the accused-petitioner.

3. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner preferred an application

under Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C. to bring on the record the

respondent's bank statements for the year 2012-2013 and the

sale deed of the lands in question. That vide order dated

19.01.2021, the learned Court below partly allowed the

application; granting the petitioner liberty to produce the bank

statements of respondent for year 2012-13, and sale deed of land

in question at his defence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the bank

statements of the respondent can only be place on record by the

respondent himself, and that there is no legal mechanism whereby

the accused-petitioner could obtain access to the bank account

statements of the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

learned Court below has committed a grave error of law by not

appreciating the wide contours and objective of Section 311

Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while the

first part of provision of law contained in Section 311 Cr.P.C. is a

discretionary power, and the second part of the said provision of

law casts an obligatory duty on the learned Trial Court, if it

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-8166/2022]

appears that the evidence in question is essential to arrive at a

just decision of the case.

The said Section of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.

Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or. recall and re- examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

6.1 Learned counsel, in support of such submission, placed

reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the Case of Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

(Criminal Appeal No.1021 of 2022) decided on 08.08.2022.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the

learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made

on behalf of the petitioner, and submitted that the learned Court

below has rightly passed the impugned order, dated 19.01.2022,

after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the

present case, and the evidences placed on the record.

8. Learned counsel for the present respondent further

submitted that the accused petitioner has already filed an

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. previously, for the same

intention and examination of the brother of the complainant-

respondent, which was rejected by the learned Court below.

9. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the

record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar.

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-8166/2022]

10. This Court, looking into the factual matrix of the case and

the stage thereof, observes that the learned Court below has

rightly passed the impugned order by partly allowing the

application preferred on behalf of the petitioner therein; and

stated that the stage of trial is on prosecution evidence.

Therefore, the accused petitioner was granted the liberty to

produce the bank statements in quesiton, of the respondent and

the sale deed of land in question, at the stage of his defence, and

the respondent has also right to cross-examination.

11. In view of the above, this Court also finds that the case law

cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not render any

assistance to the petitioner's case at hand.

12. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds that

the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as

to call for any interference by this Court, at this stage.

13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)