Allowed

John Sebastian v. Jeanette Doyle

Madras HC21 Jan 2019CRL OP/133/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition allowed. Court held that accused facing trial under Section 138 NI Act must be given opportunity to rebut presumption. Ordered lower court to recall PW1 for final cross-examination within specific timeframe, forfeiting future right to recall if conditions not met.

What did the court decide?

Crl.OP No.133 allowed; order of Court below setting aside; Trial Court directed to recall PW1 for final cross-examination on a fixed date and complete proceedings within two months.

John Sebastian Vs Jeanette Doyle — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.01.2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.133 of 2019 and Crl.MP No.85 of 2019

¶5

Mr.John Sebastian ... Petitioner/ Accused

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mrs.Jeanette Doyle ...Respondent/ Complainant

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 26.12.2018 passed in MP No.10566 of 2018 in CC No.3814 of 2016 by the FTC-II, Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Alikulam.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rathanavel For Respondents: Mr.R.Manickavel

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner to recall PW1 for further cross examination.

¶12

2. It is seen from records that the petitioner is facing trial before the Court below for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The respondent examined himself as PW1 and he was also cross-examined by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition before the Court below to send the cheque to an expert in order to determine the age of the ink. This petition was dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.OP No.9359 of 2017 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 19.12.2018 dismissed the said petition on the ground that there is no expert available to determine the age of the ink.

¶13

3. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition to recall PW1 on 26.12.2018 in order to put further questions by way of cross-examination. This petition was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the petitioner did not state, on what grounds, the further cross-examination is necessary.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

4. The petitioner as a accused person has to be afforded with sufficient opportunity to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner already made an attempt to send the cheque to an expert to determine the age of the ink. However, this petition came to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has to be necessarily given an opportunity in order to put forth all the questions to PW1. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that one last opportunity can be given to the petitioner to recall and further cross-examine PW1.

¶16

5. The order passed by the Court below in MP No.10566 of 2018 dated 26.12.2018 is hereby set-aside. The Trial Court is directed to fix a date for the appearance of PW1. On the same day, when PW1 appears before the Court, the petitioner should complete the cross examination. If for any reason, the petitioner fails to cross-examine PW1 on the day when he appears, the petitioner shall forfeit his right to recall PW1 in future.

¶17

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is
allowed and the Court below is directed to complete the
proceedings in CC No.3814 of 2016 by the FTC II, Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai - 3, within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
also closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rka
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court -II,
(Metropolitan Magistrate Court),
Egmore at Allikulam,
Chennai – 600 003.
+1cc to Mr.P.Rathanavel, Advocate, S.R.No.4127

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.133 of 2019

¶19

rrs 13/02/2019

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

John Sebastian v. Jeanette Doyle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Sebastian v. Jeanette Doyle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gemini @ Mohamed Asin @ Gemin Mohamed Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Senthilkumar Vs State by

N.Ganeshan Vs M.Palanisamy

B.a.Purushothaman Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Dinesh Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police