2020 (9) TMI 1065 - HC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court dismisses petition to summon bank employee as defense witness

Yatendra Singh Chaudhary Versus State Bank of India

The petition under Section 482 of CrPC, seeking to summon a bank employee as a defense witness, was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized ... Maintainability of petition - Rejection of application for summoning the employee of the respondent-bank - denial of fair trial - Section 311 of the CrPC. - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner had not established that for which purpose he wanted to summon the employee of the respondent-Bank. It had also not been stated by the petitioner that which bank document he wanted to summon. The petitioner had also not established the essentiality of the respondent-bank employee and document to be summoned to prove his defence. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the applicant lacking the reasonable cause for calling the witness as well as documents. Petition dismissed. Issues:Petition under Section 482 of CrPC against order dated 29/1/2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 10082/2013 - Rejection of application under Section 311 of CrPC for summoning bank employee as a defense witness.Analysis:The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, which is pending before the trial Court. The petitioner sought to summon an employee of the respondent-bank with documents in his defense under Section 311 of CrPC. However, the trial Court dismissed the application under Section 311 of CrPC without any reply from the respondent-bank. The petitioner contended that denial of calling the bank employee as a defense witness violates fair trial principles and relied on the judgment in Vijay Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Anr. The respondent opposed the application's rejection, leading to the present petition.The Supreme Court's principles in Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 461 were cited, emphasizing the importance of additional evidence under Section 311 of CrPC for a just decision. The Court highlighted that the power under Section 311 should be exercised judiciously, ensuring the truth is determined and a fair decision is reached. The Court must ascertain the essentiality of the witness or document to the case's just decision. In the current case, the petitioner failed to establish the purpose or essentiality of summoning the bank employee and documents for his defense, leading to the trial Court's justified rejection of the application.Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner did not provide reasonable cause for summoning the bank employee and documents, in line with the principles from Rajaram Prasad Yadav case. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit, and the trial Court was directed to be informed of the order for further action.In conclusion, the judgment delves into the nuances of invoking Section 311 of CrPC for summoning witnesses, emphasizing the need for just decision-making and fair trial principles. The detailed analysis based on legal precedents ensures a thorough examination of the issues involved in the petition, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition due to insufficient grounds for summoning the bank employee as a defense witness.