M/s Sita Ram Chajju Ram vs TIMCO Steel Company

Satyen Vaidya, J

Heard.

By way of this petition, a prayer has been made to set aside order dated 31.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Case No. 16/3 of 2017, whereby the application of petitioner/accused under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”) has been rejected.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that his right of defence has been seriously prejudiced by rejection of his application under Section 145(2) of the Act.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner/accused has submitted that the accused has an indefeasible right to defend himself and cross-examination is the most potent weapon in his hand to disprove the case of complainant. As per him, by denial of such a valuable right, serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has supported the impugned order on the ground that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the order. He has submitted that the application rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order in fact was the second application under Section 145(2) of the Act filed on behalf of the accused/petitioner. In the first instance, learned trial Court had allowed the accused to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses. Thereafter, an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused/petitioner with a prayer to further cross-examine the complainant/respondent. His prayer was rejected. Lastly, the accused came up with another application under Section 145(2) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the factual position as asserted on behalf of the respondent/complainant. Even the impugned order reveals the same facts as narrated by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. Evidently, the petitioner/accused was allowed to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses by allowing the application under Section 145(2) of the Act. After closure of complainant's evident, the statement of petitioner/accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.12.2019. Petitioner/accused had opted to lead defence evident but before leading such evidence, he came up with an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., for recalling CW-1 Shri Harpreet Singh, who had deposed on behalf of the complainant. Learned trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner/accused on 8th April, 2022. The order passed by the learned trial Court on 8th April, 2022 attained finality as the petitioner/accused did not choose to challenge the said order. The petitioner/accused has yet again filed another application under Section 145(2) of the Act seeking recalling of the same witness i.e. CW-1 Harpreet Singh.

The application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order after detailing all the above facts. On consideration of entire material, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. Rather, it can be seen that the conduct of petitioner/accused has not been bonafide. Once the petitioner/accused had accepted the order dated 8th April, 2022 passed by the learned trial Court on his application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., he had no right to move yet another application with the same prayer for the same purpose i.e. to cross-examine CW-1 Harpreet Singh on the ground that certain material questions could not be asked while cross-examining such witness in the first instance. This otherwise cannot be a ground for recalling a witness in normal circumstances.

In result, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.