The Court allowed one final opportunity to the petitioners accused of cheque bouncing to cross-examine witnesses upon payment of reduced costs, modifying the trial court's order before disposing of the revisions.
Petitioners directed to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 upon payment of Rs.500 per witness in November 2012.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Crl.R.C.Nos.1312 and 1324 of 2012
COMMON ORDER
Since the common issue is involved in both these revisions arising out of the interlocutory orders passed by the learned XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, they are being taken up together for disposal by this common order.
2. The second respondent/de facto complainant in both the revisions filed C.C.Nos.94 and 95 of 2011 before the XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioners/accused being father and son respectively, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In both the cases, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.Nos.2149 & 2150 of 2012 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for cross-examination and the same were allowed on 06.07.2012 subject to payment of costs of Rs.1500/-to each witness by the petitioners. When the date was fixed by the trial Court for their cross-examination, neither the petitioners paid the costs to the witnesses nor their counsel cross-examined them. Therefore, the petitions filed by the petitioners in Crl.M.P.Nos.2225 and 2226 of 2012 seeking to adjourn the cases, were dismissed by the trial Court on 18.07.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present revisions.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. On 07.08.2012, this Court while ordering to issue notice to the second respondent granted interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.Nos.94 and 95 of 2011. Seeking to vacate the interim stay, the second respondent filed Crl.M.P.Nos.2851 and 2852 of 2012.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be given one more opportunity to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases and in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, one final opportunity should be given to the petitioners for cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 on payment of costs of Rs.500/-to each witness, failing which the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law. The trial Court shall fix a date in the month of November 2012 for cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and intimate the same to the parties.
7. With the above directions, both the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions filed in these revisions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ RAJA ELANGO, J
8th October, 2012 sj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners should be granted a final opportunity to cross-examine witnesses upon payment of costs.
Whether the impugned order dismissing petitions for adjournment should be modified in public interest.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
