Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 3183 (MAD)

Thiagarajan & Another v. K. S. Somasundaram

2007-09-28

S.TAMILVANAN

body2007
Judgment :- Crl.R.C.No.993 of 2005 has been preferred against the order, dated 05.07.2005 made in C.M.P.No.148 of 2005 in C.C.No.123 of 2002. Crl.R.C.No.1000 of 2005 has been preferred against the order, dated 05.07.2005 made in C.M.P.No.149 of 2005 in C.C.No.122 of 2002. 2. The case was taken on file on the complaint given by the revision petitioners herein under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground that the cheque issued by the respondent herein for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively were dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient funds. The petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall a prosecution witness for the purpose of marking a document. 3. In the impugned order, the trial court negatived the plea of the revision petitioners, on the ground that the petitioners might produce manipulated documents and that in the rejoinder, the petitioners has not stated anything about the document to be marked. 4. Mr.V.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the documents were produced before the trial court, as per the order passed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C and that the documents are very much available before the trial court, it being a ledger and the account books. 5. As the documents were already produced before the trial court, as per the order passed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, it is not proper to dismiss the petition on the ground of non-furnishing the details of the document. Further, the finding of the trial court that the petition could have been filed to fill up the lacuna in the case, the complainant, who filed the petition might produce manipulated documents would not be a reasonable conclusion, since the documents are already available before the Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, certain important pages were left out while marking certain other pages of the ledger and account books, which would not prejudice the respondent. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent cited the decision, M/s. Dandy Knit Garments vs. M/s. Subiksha Spinners (P) Ltd, reported in 2000 Crl.L.J 624, wherein the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed to examine L.Subramaniam, who was not cited as witness. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent cited the decision, M/s. Dandy Knit Garments vs. M/s. Subiksha Spinners (P) Ltd, reported in 2000 Crl.L.J 624, wherein the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed to examine L.Subramaniam, who was not cited as witness. But in the instant case, the petition was filed only for the purpose of recalling the prosecution witness to mark the document, already produced before the trial court, has been filed. Therefore, I am of the view that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case and therefore, in the interest of justice, I am of the view to allow this Criminal Revision Petitions, permitting the petitioner to recall the prosecution witness, so as to mark only the document, which is available on the file of the trial court. 7. The respondent is at liberty to raise his legal objections, if any, at the time of marking. If needed subject to objection, the same be marked. The trial court is further directed to dispose the case within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. With the above observations, these Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.6327 of 2005 and Crl.M.P.No.6275 of 2005 are closed.