Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 439 (JHR)

Grace Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand

2025-02-14

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2025
ORDER : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred for quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.05.2024 passed in Cr. Revision No. 195 of 2023 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 362 of 2016) passed by Learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, whereby and where under the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the aforesaid criminal revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur wherein the learned court has rejected the petition filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this case has been filed for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in individual capacity of the petitioner. However, petitioner is the Director in Ms. Grace Suppliers Pvt. Ltd and the company has been impleaded, but authorization letter was issued in favour of the petitioner to conduct the case has not been brought on record due to inadvertence. Although, it is filed before the concerned trial court. The said document is necessary for just decision of the case as because in absence of authorization from the company, the petitioner will have no valid capacity to run this case. Therefore, observation of learned Revisional Court that the evidence sought for to be exhibited by the petitioner is not necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case is absolutely not justified under law. In the ends of justice, petitioner may be granted one time to lead his evidence as sought for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order. 4. Learned Spl.P.P. opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that from the impugned order itself, it is apparent that this petitioner has filed successive application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. about twice or thrice, but never agitated the present matter for getting the document to be exhibited which shows gross negligence on the part of the company. The dilatory tactics of the petitioner has caused unusual delay in disposal of the case. Hence, huge cost may be imposed, while allowing the application of the petitioner. 5. The dilatory tactics of the petitioner has caused unusual delay in disposal of the case. Hence, huge cost may be imposed, while allowing the application of the petitioner. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, the prayer of the petitioner appears to be justified under law for just decision of the case, therefore, orders passed by learned court below dated 06.05.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2023 as well as the order dated 31.05.2023 passed in complaint Case No. 362 of 2016 is hereby set aside and quashed. 6. The application of the petitioner for adducing the evidence marking the exhibit the document (Authorization Letter) marked as exhibit is allowed subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party.