Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2274 (RAJ)

Sanjay Dhalet v. Murari Lal Sain

2018-12-10

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying therein that the order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur, whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 was dismissed, be set aside. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent/complainant had instituted a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging therein that the petitioner had issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 4,50,000/- and the said cheque, on presentation had bounced. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the cross-examination of the complainant to contend that the complainant in the earlier part of the cross- examination admitted that an agreement was executed between the parties. The complainant has also admitted that if the Court directs, he can produce agreement/document in the Court. 4. It will be apposite to reproduce here following lines from the cross-examination of the complainant :- 5. On the basis of above admission made by the complainant in the cross-examination, the complainant filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying before the trial Court that the complainant be directed to produce the agreement/document for effective cross-examination. The trial Court rejected the application relying upon subsequent answers given by the complainant in the cross-examination. In the later portion, the complainant has stated as under :- 6. At the conclusion of the cross-examination, entertaining the request made by ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner that the complainant be directed to produce agreement/document, the trial Court gave following findings :- 7. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since in the earlier part of the cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he can produce agreement/document, if it is so directed by the Court, the trial Court should have allowed the application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 The trial Court to satisfy then and there asked the complainant and the complainant bluntly refused and said in categoric terms that he has no agreement/document in his possession. Therefore, the trial Court under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 cannot compel the complainant to produce agreement/document possession of which has been denied by the complainant especially in the last portion of the cross-examination. 8. section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under :- "65. Therefore, the trial Court under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 cannot compel the complainant to produce agreement/document possession of which has been denied by the complainant especially in the last portion of the cross-examination. 8. section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under :- "65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given .-Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:- (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power-of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it; (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (Emphasis supplied) (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (Emphasis supplied). (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in 1[India] to be given in evidence 2; 1[India] to be given in evidence 2 ;" (g) when the originals consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents." 9. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents." 9. In view of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, if the petitioner is having copy of the agreement/document, he can approach the trial Court for proving the agreement/document by leading secondary evidence. 10. At this juncture, ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-accused is not having any copy of the document/agreement, therefore, the petitioner cannot even lead secondary evidence. 11. In view of above facts what is the affect of contradictory statements made by the complainant in the cross-examination, is in the realm of appreciation of evidence. This Court has no doubt that if the accused urge before the trial Court to impeach the credibility of the complainant, the trial Court shall appreciate the statement of the complainant on the basis of the submissions made by ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner and the complainant. 12. So far as rejection of the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 is concerned, since the complainant has denied possession of the document/agreement, the same has been rightly declined by the trial Court. 13. No interference is warranted. 14. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.