| |
| The Tax Publishers 2022 TaxPub(CL) 2910 (Del-HC) NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, 1881
Section 138 Section 311
Company filed application for production of additional documents to prove lawful institution and maintainability of complaint, which was rejected by Trial Court without appreciating section 311 of Cr.P.C., Court has duty to give adequate opportunity to parties to lead evidence for fair trial, order of rejection of the application was set aside.
|
Dishonour of cheque - Application for production of additional documents to prove lawful institution rejected by Trial Court - Non-considering of section 311 of Cr.P.C. by Trial Court in right perspective - Grant of adequate opportunity to parties to lead evidence for fair trial
Company appointed Legal Counsel to institute legal proceedings on its behalf, who sub-delegated powers to another person. The person filed a complaint under section 138 against drawer. However, the company appointed new authorized representative. The company examined the authorized representative as witness, wherein the authorized representative could not exhibit letter of authorization in favour of the person through whom the present complaint was instituted and power of attorney which are relevant documents. The company filed an application for production of additional documents to prove the lawful institution and the maintainability of the complaint. Trial Court rejected the application as the company wanted to fulfill lacuna in this case which was not permissible. The company filed petition against the order that section 311 of Cr.P.C. was not appreciated by the Trial Court in the right perspective. Held: Court can entertain an application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceedings, if the evidence sought to be placed on record is essential for the just decision of the case. The company wanted to prove foundational facts and related documents regarding lawful institution of the complaint, but the magistrate had put the company in the dock by refusing to take on record the documents of formal proof of authorization of the person, who had instituted the complaint. No prejudice would have been caused to anyone if these foundational documents were allowed to be taken on record. The Court has duty to give adequate opportunity to the parties to lead evidence for fair trial. The order was passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and without considering that the documents sought to be exhibited, were already on record. Thus, the order is set aside and direction is given to produce the additional documents.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In favour of petitioner
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|