TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court overrules trial court, emphasizes duty to discover truth for fair trial. Petitioner granted liberty to submit additional evidence.</h1> <h3>M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited Versus Sanjeev Sachdeva</h3> M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited Versus Sanjeev Sachdeva - TMI Issues Involved:1. Quashing of orders dated 01.11.2018 and 21.01.2019.2. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for additional evidence.3. Authorization of the complainant's representative.4. Lawful institution and maintainability of the complaint.5. Just decision of the case and discovery of truth.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Quashing of Orders Dated 01.11.2018 and 21.01.2019The petitioner sought the quashing of the orders passed by the ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which dismissed applications for filing supplementary affidavits and producing additional evidence. The orders were challenged on the grounds that they were passed mechanically without due application of mind and against settled law.Issue 2: Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for Additional EvidenceThe petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to produce additional evidence, including the Board Resolution dated 02.03.2006, Letter of Authority dated 25.09.2006, and Power of Attorney dated 18.10.2012. The trial court dismissed the application, stating that the witness CW-2 had specifically stated he was not relying on the document Ex. CW1/A. The court emphasized that allowing such applications would lead to indefinite trials and piecemeal evidence submission.Issue 3: Authorization of the Complainant's RepresentativeThe petitioner company had appointed various authorized representatives through a series of resolutions and letters of authority. The trial court dismissed the application to exhibit these documents, noting that CW-2 had already stated he was not relying on the Board Resolution dated 02.03.2006, making subsequent authorizations inconsequential. The court held that the complainant could not improve its case by introducing these documents at a later stage.Issue 4: Lawful Institution and Maintainability of the ComplaintThe petitioner argued that the foundational documents proving the lawful institution and maintainability of the complaint were essential for a just decision. The trial court's refusal to admit these documents was seen as putting the complainant in a disadvantaged position, despite the documents being on record.Issue 5: Just Decision of the Case and Discovery of TruthSection 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon any person as a witness if their evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. The Supreme Court has held that this power should be exercised to discover the truth and ensure justice. The petitioner argued that no prejudice would be caused by admitting the documents, and the trial court should have allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.Conclusion:The High Court considered that the trial court had a duty to discover the truth and provide a fair trial by allowing parties to lead evidence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioner was given liberty to file an additional affidavit of CW-2 Anil Rajput and place the necessary documents on record. The petition was disposed of, and the trial court was directed to proceed as per the new evidence submitted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
