Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax was liable to be allowed in the cheque dishonour proceedings.
Analysis: The request to summon the witness was founded on the plea that he could explain the procedure for filing returns and point out deficiency, mistakes or false filing in the complainant's business records. The application did not specifically state that the proposed evidence was necessary to substantiate the defence, and the returns for the relevant period had already been placed on record. The cheque transaction and the issuance of the cheque were not disputed, and the proposed witness was not shown to be essential for deciding the issue of legally enforceable liability. The application also appeared to be made at the stage when the matter was listed for arguments, indicating an attempt to delay the proceedings rather than to secure necessary evidence.
Conclusion: The request for summoning the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax was rightly rejected and the petition seeking interference failed.
Final Conclusion: The order refusing to summon the witness was sustained, and the challenge to that order was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A witness may be summoned under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 only when the evidence appears necessary for a just decision, and the provision cannot be used to introduce irrelevant material or to prolong the trial.