AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 965
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecial Magistrate Court-I, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. The said case is filed by the petitioner - complainant represented by his GPA Holder - Maddi Madan Mohan against respondent No.2 - accused for the offence punishable under Section 132 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act 1881'). 3. When the aforesaid case was posted to pronouncement of judgment, a day prior to it, the GPA Holder of complainant filed Crl.M.P. No.979 of 2018 under Section 311 of the Code to recall PW.1, while Crl.M.P. No.980 of 2018 under Section 254 (1) of the Code to receive the documents, such as promissory note dated 10.08.2012 executed by accused in favour of the complainant; reply notice dated 19.09.2017 issued by the accused; E.mails 32 in number sent by the accused and original sale deed bearing document No.5397 of 2008, and also another Crl.M.P. No.978 of 2018 to reopen the case before the Court below alleging that he was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-15; that at the time of examination of PW.1, due to communication gap between himself and the complainant, the aforesaid documents were not filed before the Court below which are essential to establi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09.2014, to substantiate his contention that in the absence of any provision in the Code, Court can exercise power to reopen the evidence and drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 of the said judgment. In another judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Re:Shantilal v. Unkonwn AIR 1959 MP 290, the same view was expressed by the Court and on the strength of the principles laid down in the said judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested to allow the petitions setting aside the impugned order. 8. Whereas, learned counsel for respondent contending that in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra4, PW.1 is incompetent to speak about the documents proposed to be filed and that the petitions are filed only to protract the proceedings for some more time, placed reliance on the judgment in A.C. Narayanan (2014) 11 SCC 790, and also another judgment in A.G. v. Shiv Kumar Yadav 2016 (2) SCC 402, and on the strength of these principles, he contended that there are no merits in the petitions and requested to dismiss the petitions. 9. Undoubtedly, the eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Therefore, he is not competent to speak about the documents which are sought to be produced by the petitioner - PW.1. However, this Court cannot exercise power under Section 311 of the Code to reopen the evidence of any witness. Section 311 of the Code limits power of the Court to certain extent, as referred to in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot exercise such power to reopen the evidence as there is no provision in the Code to reopen the evidence of any witness. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Court can exercise such power though such power is not conferred on the Court and drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment in D. Swornapushpam (SUPRA), which are as under: "6. Though the revision petitioner would contend that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to the provisions found in the Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay in producing the documents relied on by the complainant, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not in a position to point out any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that bars the Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liability. The said position will make it clear that the document required for the proof of the debt or other liability can be produced at a later point of time, when the burden shall stand shifted on the complainant. If these aspects are taken into consideration, this Court can, without any hesitation, come to the conclusion that there is no defect or infirmity in the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, which is sought to be challenged in the revision. There is no merit in the revision and the revision deserves to be dismissed." When a similar question came up before the Karnataka High Court, the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Forever Precious Jewellery @ Diamonds Ltd. (SUPRA), had an occasion to consider an identical question and concluded that the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of the Code in the absence of any provision to reopen the evidence. But, I am unable to agree with the law declared by the learned Single Judge of the other High Courts referred supra, and in the absence of any provision in the Code to reopen the evidence of any party to the proceeding, the Court cannot normally exercise such power unless it concludes that the evidence of witness....