Criminal Writ Petition No. 726 of 2011

20th January, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Shri F.R. TANDALE
Respondent Counsel: Shri S.D. HIWAREKAR

Cases Cited:
U.T. of Dadra, Nagar & Haveli & anr Vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3545 (S.C.)=2006(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 613 [Para 7]
P.Chhaganlal Daga Vs. M. Sanjay Shaw, (2003) 11 SCC 486 [Para 7,11]
Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 740 (S.C.)=2001 Law Suit (SC) 1548 [Para 7,11]
State of H P Vs. Ravi Kumar, 2008 Law Suit (HP) 125 [Para 7]
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat, 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2502 (S.C.)=2004 AIR (SC) 3114 [Para 7]
Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell through its Officer in Charge, Delhi, (1999) 6 SCC 110 [Para 7,10,14]
Shri R.N. Kakkar Vs. Hanif Gafoor Naviwala & Others, 1996(2) ALL MR 466=1996(3) Bom.C.R. 292 [Para 8,9,15]
Smt. Gurmeet W/o Surjitsingh Asla Vs. Smt. Renusingh W/o Josisingh & anr, 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2438 [Para 8,10,15]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Heard. Perused.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by mutual consent.

3. Sagacity of the order dated 08-04-2011 rejecting the application (Exhibit 31) for permission to recall and re-examine the complainant for adducing the additional evidence in S.C.C. No. 2625/2009, passed by learned 13thJudicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad is in question in the present petition

4. The petitioner lodged a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1872, against the respondent in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. This case is numbered as S.C.C. No. 2625/2009 and was assigned to the learned 13th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad for its disposal. The petitioner tendered an affidavit (Exhibit 14) dated 05-12-2009 in line with his pleadings in the complaint as his examination in chief. He was cross-examined at length. After his cross-examination was over, he moved an application dated 24-01-2011 (Exhibit 30) for production of documents namely income tax returns and twelve bills of purchase made by the accused from time to time from his shop. Learned trial Court in the interest of justice allowed the production of documents upon considering the rival contentions. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application (Exhibit 31) dated 14-03-2011 for his re-examination in order to give evidence in respect of the documents produced vide application (Exhibit 30).

5. The petitioner in his application (Exhibit 31) contended that his additional evidence is necessary to prove the said documents evincing the business transactions between him and the respondent, and consequent acquaintance between the two since long prior to the transaction in question, and that it would not change the nature of the case. These contentions were countered by the respondent with the say dated 02-04-2011. The respondent contended that Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not contemplate calling of the witness after the completion of his evidence, and the said documents being not in the handwriting of the petitioner/complainant. The petitioner is not a competent witness to prove the documents, and the additional evidence is being adduced to fill-up lacuna in the prosecution case after the opportunity to lead evidence was availed .

6. Learned trial Court after considering the rival contentions ordered that the Income Tax returns be exhibited and rejected the prayer for leading oral evidence by recalling the petitioner. Learned trial Court reasoned that production of Income Tax returns was solicited in the cross-examination, but the bills were produced after completion of evidence of the PW-1- Bhausaheb Salve (son of the petitioner/ complainant) and, therefore, the application in question was moved to fill-up lacuna.

7. Learned Advocate Shri F.R. Tandale for petitioner submitted that it has been the case of the petitioner/ complainant that cheque was issued by the accused for repayment of a friendly loan, which was lent to the accused by petitioner out of long standing acquaintance between the two as a vendor of the insecticides, fertilizers etc., and its purchaser, and the evidence was to be led for providing the bills evincing the business transactions over a period of time between the two. Learned Advocate Shri F.R. Tandale, further submitted that this exercise of recalling the witness and tendering the proof of the transaction between the two is necessary for bringing true and correct facts before the learned trial Court, and thereby aid the process of delivering just decision in the case. He submitted that in para No. 2 of the complaint of the petitioner, the case of acquaintance between the two as a result of business transaction over the years is clearly spelt out and, therefore, the evidence sought to be produced would in no way offer new dimension to the case in question. In support of these submissions he cited following Judgments :-

[i] 2006(2) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 613) : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3545 (S.C.)]; [ U.T. of Dadra, Nagar & Haveli & anr Vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan ]

[ii] (2003) 11 SCC 486;[P.Chhaganlal Daga Vs. M. Sanjay Shaw]

[iii] 2001 Law Suit (SC) 1548 : [2002 ALL MR (Cri) 740 (S.C.)]; [Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar]

[iv] 2008 Law Suit (HP) 125; [State of H P Vs. Ravi Kumar]

[v] 2004 AIR (SC) 3114 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2502 (S.C.)]; [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat]

[ix] (1999) 6 SCC 110 [Rajendra Prasad V. Narcotic Cell through its Officer in Charge, Delhi].

8. Learned Advocate Shri Hiwarekar for the respondent submitted that it was the case of the petitioner/ complainant in para No. 2 that he was running a shop name and styled as " Shriram Krushi Seva Kendra, and the bills are sought to be proved in evidence are of " Saint Tukaram Krushi Seva Kendra". This variance in his view, signifies an effort to change the nature of the case and as such would cause serious prejudice to the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. In support of his submissions he invited the attention to the Court to the Judgments of Shri R.N. Kakkar Vs. Hanif Gafoor Naviwala & Others; reported in 1996(3) Bom.C.R. 292 : [1996(2) ALL MR 466] and Smt. Gurmeet W/o Surjitsingh Asla Vs. Smt. Renusingh W/o Josisingh & anr.; reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2438.

9. In Hanif Gaffor Naviwals's, : [1996(2) ALL MR 466] (Supra) case the prosecution Director of Intelligence wanted to bring on record in the trial for offences punishable under Section the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for Short 'N.D.P.S. Act, 1985') and Section 135 of the Customs Act, additional evidence based on gist of information, original copy of summons and search warrants, photographs taken under the proceedings conducted under Section 52(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 by the SMM and to open seized articles. Learned Trial Court in the said case except permitting to open of the seized articles rejected the application on the ground that the granting it would amount to prosecution being permitted to fill in lacuna in its case.

"Such as failure of the officers to reduce the information into writing, failure of the officers to forward copies of the such gist of information to the superior authorities, issue of search warrants for carrying out searches of the premises between the sunset and sunrise."

This was considered as an act of filling lacuna in the case, as there was no mention of gist of information, search warrant etc. in the application Exh. 7 filed on behalf of the prosecution and further during the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is on this back ground, the Single Judge of this Court held that "although the amplitude of the powers vested in a Court under Section 311 is very wide, the object of exercise of such powers is not to enable the prosecution to adduce evidence which would plug-in the holes in its case for such exercise of power would be defeating the very object for which it has been bestowed on the Court, namely, the just decision of the case."

10. In Gurmeet W/o Sujitsingh Asla's case (Supra), Single Judge of this Court, upon considering the case cited by the petitioners particularly, Rajendra Prasad's Case (Supra) held that " it is an inherent justice jurisdiction of the Court to recall the witnesses if the Court perceives and is satisfied about the need thereof to be imperative for doing justice and such jurisdiction ought not be abused." In the said case, it appears that the complainant initially averred that the receipts issued by the accused were taken back in exchange of cheque in question, and later on made an application for adducing evidence regarding those receipts, and this act of the complainant, the learned Single Judge of this Court viewed would result in allowing to complainant take a stand which is topsy-turvy of what she asserted before the Court on oath.

11. From reading of both the said cases it is abundantly clear that invoking the provision of under Section 311 of the Code was deprecated, if it was an act to fill up lacuna in prosecution case. Reading of the Rajendra Prasad's Case from which the Hon'ble Apex Court while delivering Judgments in P.Chhaganlal Daga's case (Supra) and Shailendra Kumar's : [2002 ALL MR (Cri) 740 (S.C.)]case (Supra) has drawn rationale from time to time reveals that the Hon'ble Apex Court enriched judicial understanding in respect of lacuna in the prosecution case in the following terms :

"as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case . The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the cause, but an over sight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna."

12. It was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "no party in a trial can be fore-closed from correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistake to be rectified. After all, function of the Criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better.

In the instant case, para No. 2 of the complaint reads as under :-

"That, complainant is running shop in the name and style as Shriram Krishi Seva Kendra at Sawangi Bazar Tq. Khultabad and dealing in the business of sale of Agricultural Seeds, Insecticides, Pesticides Fertilizers etc. That, native places of complainant and accused are the nearby villages and accused used to purchase Agricultural Seeds, Insecticides, Fertilizers etc. from the shop of complainant and thereby the relations between the complainant and accused were developed and which were converted into friendship."

Para No. 2 of affidavit-in-chief (Exhibit 40) is no different than para No. 2 of the complaint (Exhibit 14).

13. In this context, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that assertion made in para No. 2 simply means that the complainant at the material time was running a shop named and styled as 'Shriram Krushi Seva Kendra' and was not owning the said shop. Assertion following thereto he further clarified, relates to purchase of agricultural seeds, insecticides, fertilizers etc. by the accused from the shop of complainant. In the light of such assertion, he added that it would only mean that the petitioner/ complainant was referring to the shop of his ownership. He invited attention of this Court to his cross-examination where he had expanded the said proposition with averments that the accused had made purchases some three years back from his shop and, therefore, he had not presented the said bills at the time of filing the complaint. The said bills were not before him and the said shop run by him under the name and styled as 'Shriram Krushi Seva Kendra' belonged to his son. To Counter this submission learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the text of the para No. 2 of the complaint needs to be read coherently in order to draw correct sense therefrom.

14. If, the text of the para No. 2 of the complaint is read plainly and coherently it can only make a sense as is indicated in the sentences therein. The petitioner/ complainant has not suggested that 'Shriram Krushi Seva Kendra' belongs to him and the petitioner went on to add that the purchases were made by the respondent/ accused from his shop. Assuming that in context with each other the sentences in para No. 2 of the complaint make a sense that the purchases were made by the accused from his shop 'Shriram Krushi Seva Kendra', the ultimate purpose of this sense is to make out a case of long-standing relations between the complainant and the accused which flowered into a friendship and lead to the transaction in question. This forms pith or gravamen of the prosecution case, a reference to 'Shriram Kushi Seva Kendra' therefore, can be seen only as a aberration in the management of the prosecution as contemplated in Rajendra Prasad's Case (Supra) which can not be treated as irreparable lacuna. For the just decision of the case, it is necessary that the true facts concerning the long-standing acquaintance between the parties surface in the evidence. If they are allowed to be surfaced by invoking powers under Section 311 of the Code, it would cause no prejudice to the respondent/ accused resulting in mis-carriage of justice, as the respondent/ accused will continue have a right of crossexamination and right to lead evidence in his defence.

15. On facts the present case is a shade different than Hanif Gafoor Nivawal's, : [1996(2) ALL MR 466] case (Supra) and Gurmeet S. Asla's case (Supra). In the present case there is no about turn taken by the petitioner in relation to his case of long-standing acquaintance out of business relationship as it appears in the cases cited on behalf of the respondent. Obviously, the move to invoke Section 311 of the Code cannot be dubbed as an act to fill in lacuna in the case. This aspect of the case was completely overlooked by the learned trial Court, and the Court was swayed by the fact that the documents were being produced after completion of the evidence of prosecution witness-Bhausaheb Palve.

16. In the result, the petition needs to be allowed, order dated 08-04-2011 passed below Exh. 31 in S.T.C. No. 2625/2009 by 13th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad is quashed and set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to re-examine the petitioner as prayed in the application below (Exhibit 31). Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Criminal Writ Petition No. 726/2011 stands disposed off accordingly.

Ordered accordingly