Dismissed

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey v. State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC1 May 2019Cr.M.P./1254/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions wherein the petitioner sought secondary evidence of an Income Tax Return. The Court held that the trial court had provided sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence and the petitioner could file a fresh petition departing on the matter.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petitions and intermedadry applications were dismissed.

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Vs State Of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.1254 of 2016 With I.A.NO.8133 of 2018 And Cr.M.P.No.1263 of 2016 With I.A.No.8132 of 2018

¶2

-- Awadhesh Kumar Pandey .. . …Petitioner.

¶3

( In both the cases).

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ……Opp.parties.

¶6

--CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr.Indrajit Sinha, Advocate. For the State : APP. For the O.P.no.2 : Mr. Alok Anand, Advocate.

¶8

---------

¶9

03/01.05.2019

¶10

These petitions have been filed for quashing of the orders dated 30.09.2015 and 30.05.2016 passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Complaint Case nos.168 of 2011(Cr.M.P.No.1254/2016) and Complaint Case no.169 of 2011(Cr.M.P.No.1263/2016).

¶11

At the very threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa in Cr. Appeal no.636 of 2019, dated 09.04.2019 and submitted that the Apex Court, in the said case, has observed that in a case registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the presumption shall be raised that the cheque was issued for legally payable debt. That the court has also to see whether the complainant had the financial capacity to pay the amount of the cheque which was issued for repayment. That the Apex Court has held that to substantiate the said presumption, the accused or the petitioner can lead evidence in his defence to establish that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to advance the said amount.

¶12

It is argued that the petitioner had filed the petition for making the e-filing of income tax returns of the complainant as an exhibit, but the court below has rejected the

¶13

¶14

application of the petitioner without appreciating the fact that if the document could not be marked as exhibit under Section 294 Cr.P.C due to contest by the Opposite party, it would have been marked as exhibit under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, as it was generated through the electronic device. It is argued that the court below has failed to appreciate the provision of law in its correct perspective.

¶15

It is submitted that in any view of the matter, the court below should give an opportunity to the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in proof of the document, i.e., the Income Tax Return of the complainant for the assessment year 2011-12.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.no.2, has submitted that it would be evident that by order dated 30.05.2016 the court below had rejected the application for marking the Income Tax Return in the name of O.P. for the assessment year 2011-12 bearing E.filing no.350900970130312 dated 13.03.2012. That the court below has considered the provision of Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act and held that the said document could not be made admissible either under Section 294 Cr.P.C or under Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act.

¶17

It is submitted that the petitioner had previously filed a similar petition, which was rejected by order dated 30.09.2015. That in fact, the aforesaid orders do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. That the trial court does not have the power to review a substantive order passed by it earlier. It is submitted that the document filed by the petitioner does not come within the purview of Section 63 of the Evidence Act.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order it is evident that the case has been fixed for defence witness. The petition for making the document with respect to Income-Tax return for the assessment year 2011-12 of the O.P. was rejected earlier vide order 30.09.2015. Thereafter a petition was filed by the petitioner which has also been rejected on 30.05.2016. The court below, in the impugned order, has observed that sufficient opportunity was given to the accused person to adduce evidence and another opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence. The contention of the learned counsel

¶19

¶20

that the petitioner be allowed to lead secondary evidence in proof of the document is a matter which can be considered by the court below as and when such petition is filed by the petitioner. It is evident that the court below has given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. If the petitioner wants to lead secondary evidence in proof of the document in terms of Section 63 of the Evidence Act, he can file the petition before the court below and the court below shall pass necessary order on the application in accordance with law. The orders dated 30.09.2015 and 30.05.2016 shall not come in the way of the court below in deciding and passing the order on the petition, if any, filed by the petitioner.

¶21

With the aforesaid direction the criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed off.

¶22

In view of the final order passed in this petition I.A.No.8133 of 2018 and I.A.No.8132 of 2018 stand disposed off.

¶23

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶24

Biswas.

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey v. State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey v. State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navnit Kumar Chaudhary Represented through His Mother Fulo Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramashish Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sekhar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand