TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as not maintainable and also order dated 28.5.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Complaint Case No.461/2016 has been confirmed, whereby three applications filed by the petitioner under section 311of Cr.P.C., section 91 of Cr.P.C. and section 243 (2) of Cr.P.C. have been dismissed. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the respondent no.2 filed a complaint on 3.3.2016 against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena stating therein that the complainant is in service in the Reserve Police Force and the accused/petitioner is known to him. In the month of August, 2018, the respondent no.2 lend ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning the documents i.e. the income tax return filed by the complainant which are relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The third application moved by the petitioner was under section 243 (2) of Cr.P.C. for examination of the signature and the ink, date and amount mentioned in the cheque in question from Forensic Science Laboratory Bhopal which is requisite in the present case. 5. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 28.5.2019 dismissed all the three applications in an illegal and arbitrary manner. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.5.2019 the petitioner filed the revision petition before the Revisional Court which was also dismsised vide order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind". 12. In the case of Ratanlal Vs Prahlad (2018 (1) MPLJ (Cri) (SC) 1951) has held that power of Court to recall or re-examine any person already examined must be exercised only for strong and valid reasons, with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the Court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. 13. Admittedly, in the present case, all the prosecution witnesses were examined by the earlier counsel. In the present case, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The respondent no.2 submitted that the application has been filed for the sole purpose of delaying the trial. Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that initially burden is on the respondent no.2 to prove his case and secondly several opportunities for cross-examination were granted to the petitioner and vide order dated 30.10.2018 the right of defence has been closed and the matter is fixed for final arguments. The evidence has been completed and the ruling produced by the petitioner are of no assistance. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 17. The powers conferred under Section 91 of the Cr. P.C. are, enabling in nature, aimed at arming the Court or any officer-in-charge of a Police Station concerned to enforce and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on for the reasons mentioned therein. 21. In view of the above, no apparent jurisdictional error appears to have been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. warranting interference or exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 22. So far as rejection of application under section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the said application was moved on the ground that it is important to get the ink and signature of the so called agreement examined from Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal for the purpose of just and fair trial. It is further mentioned that due to accident of the earlier counsel Shri Rajeev Chauhan all these aspects could not be examined at the time of recording the....