Dismissed

Veerbhadreshwar Agro Agencies v. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2024CRL.P/10126/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order refusing to recall the petitioner's deponent for further cross-examination. The court held that since documents were admitted by the witness during cross-examination under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, the objection should have been taken then. Consequently, recalling the witness to fil

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; application for recalling DW1 denied; quashing of impugned order denied.

Veerbhadreshwar Agro Agencies Vs Mangalore… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:492 CRL.P No. 10126 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10126 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VEERBHADRESHWAR AGRO AGENCIES

¶9

S.N 5/1/71, STATION ROAD, GUNJ BHALKI, BIDAR - 585 328. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. BASAVARAJ S PATIL.

¶10

BASAVARAJ S PATIL PROPRIETOR, VEERBHADRESHWAR AGRO AGENCIES, S.N 5/1/71, STATION ROAD, GUNJI BHALKI, BIDAR - 585 328.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. JAGADISH D. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED LEVEL 11, UB TOWERS, UB CITY, 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. PRASANNA K P.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. UDAY SHANKAR.R.M., ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:492 CRL.P No. 10126 of 2023

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU DATED 19.09.2023 ON IA UNDER SECTION 311 OF CRPC IN C.C.NO.51354/2022.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the Trial Court on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of 11 Cr.P.C. for recalling the DW1 for the purpose of further cross examination in C.C.No.51354/202..

¶25

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent .

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that petitioner facing the trial before the magistrate under Section 138 of NI Act on the private complaint filed by the respondent. The complainant himself examined as witness and got marked some documents. After closing of the complainant's witness, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner himself was examined as D.W.1.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:492 CRL.P No. 10126 of 2023

¶29

During the cross examination, the counsel for complainant said to be confronted two documents and marked as Exs.P.11 and 12, as it was admitted by the petitioner during the cross examination. Subsequently, after the completion of the evidence of D.W.1, the counsel for petitioner/accused filed the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for recalling the D.W.1 for the purpose of further cross examination for giving explanation to the Exs.P.11 and 12, which came to be dismissed. Hence petitioner is before this court.

¶30

Having heard the arguments, perused the records,

¶31

which reveals the deposition also produced by the learned counsel, wherein the complainant has filed case under Section 138 of NI Act, for issuance of cheque which was dis-honoured for want of funds. The plea was recorded and complainant himself examined as witness and marked various documents including invoices, regarding business transactions between the complainant and accused. Subsequently, after completion of the evidence of the complainant, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and defense was started, while accused himself examined as D.W.1. During the cross examination of the D.W.1 by the counsel for the accused,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:492 CRL.P No. 10126 of 2023

¶34

where the counsel for the complainant marked two documents by confronting with the accused which was admitted by him in the cross examination. Now the learned counsel submits the documents ought to have marked subject to the objections, even though these documents are not part and parcel of the complaint or examination chief. Therefore, the Trial Court committed error in marking the documents without any objections. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court as well as coordinate bench of this Court and the Supreme court.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent has contended when the documents are admitted by the witness, in the witness box it is an admitted fact and is marked as Esx.P11 and 12, he could have given explanation immediately, during the cross examination, or in the re-examination for explaining the documents, on what context he has signed it. Therefore, he cannot recall himself for giving explanation for filling up the lacuna, in the evidence adduced by him. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:492 CRL.P No. 10126 of 2023

¶38

Considering the fact of the case, where it is well settled any documents is marked even without objections and the objection can be raised at any stage, even at appellate stage, as per the judgment of division bench of this court reported in 2017 (4) KCCR 3615, (DB), (Dharwad Bench) in the case of Ramachandra Narayan Talawar Vs Kumar Soukharya and Ors . But here in this case, where the documents were confronted by the complainant counsel, to the petitioner when D.W.1. was cross examined where the deposition claiming says, D.W.1., admitted the documents and

¶39

the signature. Therefore, the Trial Court marked the documents as Exs.P.11, 12, 11A and 12A respectively. Once, the witness admitted the documents in the cross examination, there is no question of marking the documents, subject to the objection. It has to be marked as exhibits. In the cross examination even any documents can be confronted by the other side to the witness who is a maker of the documents which is admissible under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such being the case, I am of the view, the petitioner cannot recall himself for the purpose of giving explanation, if it is allowed, nothing but filling the blanks as rightly contended by

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:492 CRL.P No. 10126 of 2023

¶41

¶42

the counsel for the respondent. Therefore, I am of the view, once the documents is admitted by the witness in the witness box the Trial Court has no option to mark the same, once the documents are admitted, the admitted documents cannot be disputed. However it has to be appreciated by the Trial Court during the course of judgment. Accordingly, I am of the view, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the application for recalling the DW1. Hence, this petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

¶43

Accordingly the petition is dismissed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62 CT:SK

Veerbhadreshwar Agro Agencies v. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerbhadreshwar Agro Agencies v. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.

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

Mr Santosh Hipparagi Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha Police

Piyush Singh Alias Prince Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Deepa P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sanay R Vs the State of Karnataka

Nisar Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Robin Khandelwal Vs State of Karnataka