Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 388 (ORI)

Ajit Patnaik v. Samarendra Samanta

2007-05-18

PRADIP MOHANTY

body2007
JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : This revision is directed against the order dated 20th July, 2006 passed in I.C.C. No.3388 of 2005 by the J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar. 2. Brief fact of the case is that the present opposite party as complainant filed I.C.C. No.3388 of 2005 against the present petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After going through the complaint petition, initial statement of the com¬plainant and other documents available on record, cognizance was taken under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and process was issued against the accused-petitioner, pursuant to which the accused-petitioner appeared and contested the case. After closure of the evidence from both sides, arguments were heard and completed on 18.07.2006 and the case was posted to 24.07.2006 for judgment. Later in the day, i.e., on 18.07.2006, the complainant-opposite party filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine some other witnesses. The accused-opposite party also filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to call for the case record of I.C.C. No.124 of 2006. After hearing the counsel for both the parties, the trial Court by the impugned order allowed both the petitions. The accused-petitioner has filed this revision being aggrieved by that part of the order whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the complainant-opposite party to examine his witnesses. 3. Counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that at a belated stage and after closure of argument, the complainant-opposite party filed the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the witnesses with mala fide intention only to harass and humiliate the petitioner. He further submits that he did not disclose the name of the witnesses to whom he wants to examine, which amounts to filling up the lacuna and to cause harassment to the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party submits that the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be filed and entertained at any stage of the trial. He had filed a petition to examine some more witnesses for just decision of the case and the trial Court has not committed any illegality in allowing the said petition. He further submits that this revision has already become infructuous since the part of the order sought to be challenged in this revision has already been implemented. 4. He had filed a petition to examine some more witnesses for just decision of the case and the trial Court has not committed any illegality in allowing the said petition. He further submits that this revision has already become infructuous since the part of the order sought to be challenged in this revision has already been implemented. 4. Perused the revision petition, affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party and the up-to-date order sheet of the Court of J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar maintained in the aforesaid case. It appears from the order sheet annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party that after the impugned order was passed on 20.07.2006, one Subrat Kumar Samant has been examined on behalf of the complainant on 28.07.2006 and he has been cross-examined and discharged on 05.08.2006. Thereafter, on 08.08.2006 witnesses Subrat Kumar Panda, Aswini Kumar Samanta and Dasarathi padhi have been examined, cross-examined and dis¬charged. Subsequently, on 17.08.2006 on Chandra Sekhar Sahoo has been examined as C.W.6. Although his cross-examination was ini¬tially declined, but later in the day, i.e., 17.08.2006 on the petition of the accused-petitioner, he was recalled and thereaf¬ter he was cross-examined and discharged. From the aforesaid,it is quite evident that the part of order which is sought to be challenged in this revision has already been implemented. 5. When the part of the impugned order, which is sought to be challenged in this revision, has already been implemented, nothing remains to be decided in this revision, which has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the Court below to complete the trial within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order after full compliance of the impugned order. Revision dismissed.