Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 420 (CAL)

Suresh Chandra Khemka v. State Of West Bengal

2020-03-12

JAY SENGUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application praying for quashing of a complaint case under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel appears on behalf of the complainant/opposite party and files Vakalatnama as well as a certified copy of the entire order sheet. The same are also taken on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The prime contentions of the accused/petitioner are that sufficient averments were not made in the petition of complaint to arraign the present petitioner as an accused in the case and there is no averment in the petition of complaint regarding the knowledge of the authorised representative about the transaction in question. During the pendency of this application, the learned trial court was pleased to close the cross-examination of PW1 by the defence. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party submits as follows. Several opportunities were given to the accused/petitioner to cross-examine PW1. Yet, the accused/petitioner did not avail of such opportunity. Accordingly, the cross-examination had to be closed. Besides, clear averment is made at paragraph 1 of the petition of complaint that the petition of complaint was being filed by a director of the complainant company who was well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. This is a substantial compliance of the guidelines laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in A.C. Narayanans case, (2014) 1 CalCriLR 555 (SC). Even the averments made about the director being in charge and responsible to the company for the day to day conduct of its business is sufficiently made out in the petition of complaint. 6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the evidence has started, the petitioner would not like to press this application and would instead take up all the points raised in this application before the learned trial court. However, in the interest of justice, the order of the learned trial court to close the cross-examination of PW1 may be set aside and an opportunity may be given to the accused/petitioner to cross-examine PW1. 7. However, in the interest of justice, the order of the learned trial court to close the cross-examination of PW1 may be set aside and an opportunity may be given to the accused/petitioner to cross-examine PW1. 7. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revisional application is disposed of as not pressed. It is made clear that the merits of the case have not been gone into. 8. In the interest of justice, the order dated 3rd March, 2020 passed by the learned trial court thereby closing the cross-examination of PW1 is set aside. The learned trial court shall give another opportunity to the accused/petitioner to cross-examine PW1 and thereafter, proceed with the rest of the trial. 9. With these observations, the revisional application and the connected application are disposed of. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties upon usual undertakings.