TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 996
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id cheques were presented for payment were dishonoured by the banker of the accused/ respondent i.e Syndicate Bank, INA Colony, New Delhi on the ground of "payment stopped by the drawer". The respondent did not pay the cheque amount despite legal notice dated 05.02.2007. 3. The Board of Directors of the petitioner vide Resolution dated 02.03.2006 appointed Shri Narinder S. Kainth, Regional Legal Counsel North, as Constituent Attorney with further power of delegation to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter Shri Narinder S. Kainth vide letter of Authorisation dated 25.09.2006 sub delegated the powers to Shri Sanjay Mittal and appointed him as authorised representative of petitioner in the present complaint. The petitioner subsequently appointed new authorized representative and lastly Shri Anil Rajput was appointed as authorized representative of the petitioner vide letter of Authority dated 25.01.2018 which was signed by Shri Narinder S. Kainth in pursuance of the power of attorney dated 18.10.2012. 4. The petitioner had examined Anil Rajput as CW-2 who exhibited Board Resolution dated 02.03.2006 as exhibit CW-1/A. However, the CW-2 could not exhibit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oard Resolution dated 02.03.2006 and in continuation thereof, the Letter of Authority dated 25.09.2006 and the Power of Attorney dated 18.10.2012 in favour of Shri Narinder S. Kainth which were foundational documents to prove the lawful institution and the maintainability of the Complaint. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 21.1.2019 passed by the Court of Shri. Atul Krishna Agrawal ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-`ARC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi by observing :- Vide this order, I will dispose off application u/s 311 Cr.PC moved by complainant. Through this application complainant is seeking opportunity to lead further evidence so as to prove Power of Attorney dated 18.10.2012, resolution dated 02.03.2006 and letter of authorization dated 25.09.2006. It is stated that the Board of Directors of complainant company vide its Minutes dated 02.03.2006 had authorized Sh. N. S. Kainth its Senior Legal Executive to institute the present suit with power to sub-delegate his authority pursuant to which the present complaint was filed by Sh. Sanjay Mittal. Thereafter, Sh.N.S. Kainth was solely authorized vide Power of Attorney dated 18.10.2012 to deal with legal matters of the compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the present matter complainant evidence already stands closed. No new ground is made out to allow the present application, hence the same stands dismissed. Matter be put up for DE for 07.02.2019. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed the present petition and challenged the impugned orders on the grounds that the impugned orders were passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and without considering that the documents sought to be exhibited, were already on record. The trial court has not appreciated the provision under section 311 Cr.P.C. in the right perspective and impugned orders were passed against the settled law. The impugned orders are based on conjecture and surmises. It was prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. 8. The counsel for the petitioner stated and argued that the Complainant was the victim of the offence of dishonor of the Cheques committed by the accused, and by not allowing the petitioner/complainant to prove foundational facts and related documents regarding lawful institution of the complaint, the magistrate had put the petitioner/complainant in the dock by refusing to take on record the documents of formal proof of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." 12. The unequivocal manner in which the section is worded ("any Court," "at any stage," "any inquiry, trial or other proceeding" and "any person") indicates that there is no limitation whatsoever on the power of a Trial Court in summoning/examining persons as witnesses. This power is, in fact, coupled by a corresponding duty to exercise the aforementioned powers if the purported new evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. The Court cannot evade its statutory responsibility by omitting to consider whether the evidence of any witness left out by the parties is essential or not (Ram Bali v. State AIR 1952 All 289). The court may summon witnesses, and if the prosecution declines to examine them, the court may thereupon, acting on its own initiative, cause them to be produced (Satyendra v. Emperor A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 463). The power of the court to examine a w....