Allowed

Shaik Abdul Ali v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Mar 2015CRLP/1140/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a criminal petition challenging the dismissal of a request to recall a prosecution witness for further cross-examination. The court deemed the petitioners proposed lines of questioning vital for establishing their defence in a cheque bouncing case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; the trial court is directed to recall the witness strictly on specified aspects of service of notice and related cheque facts.

Shaik Abdul Ali Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

Criminal Petition No.1140 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

At the admission stage, the following order is passed:

¶5

2) The petitioner/accused challenges the order dated 31.01.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.162 of 2015 in C.C.No.201 of 2013 passed by learned XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.311 Cr.P.C to recall PW.1 for further crossexamination was dismissed.

¶6

3 ) It is a cheque bouncing case. The 2^nd respondent/complainant is a bank which filed the C.C.No.201 of 2013 with the allegations that the cheque issued by the petitioner/accused towards discharge of the loan amount was bounced back.

¶7

4) While-so, the petitioner/accused sought for recall of PW.1 on the submission that during the earlier crossexamination, for want of proper instructions PW.1 could not be comprehensively cross-examined and hence recall of PW.1 is necessary for further cross-examinations on the aspects touching

¶8

(i) service of notice

¶9

(ii) Pendency of O.As before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of very same loan amount

¶10

(iii) with regard to the overwriting of the name of the Assistant General Manager without any permission from the Hon’ble Court and

¶11

(iv) with regard to the filling up the blank cheque with the figures of the loan by the Bank etc., facts.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the above aspects are very crucial for establishing the defence of the accused and therefore, an opportunity may be given to the accused.

¶13

5 ) Having regard to the above submission of the petitioner/accused, this Court is of the considered view that an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner/accused to recall PW.1 for further crossexamination because the aspects to be covered in the further cross-examination are vital in the sense that they are touching the aspects of the bank filing O.As before the Debt Recovery Tribunal allegedly in respect of the same loan amount and other connected issues.

¶14

6) Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.01.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.162 of 2015 in C.C.No.201 of 2013 passed by learned XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad is set aside and the trial

¶15

Court is directed to recall PW.1 for further crossexamination by the petitioner/accused strictly on the following aspects:

¶16

(i) service of notice

¶17

(ii) Pendency of O.As before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of very same loan amount

¶18

(iii) with regard to the overwriting of the name of the Assistant General Manager without any permission from the Hon’ble Court and

¶19

(iv) with regard to the filling up the blank cheque with the figures of the loan by the Bank.

¶20

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶21

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶22

Date: 06.03.2015 scs

Shaik Abdul Ali v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Abdul Ali v. The State of Telangana

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

S.H. Patil Vs The State Of Telangana

Smt. Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Charmarthi Rajendra Babu

Thiruvayapatti Mary Molidered , Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Alaga Raja Vs The State of Telangana

Kolagani Venkatesh Vs Sri Annarao Gurlingappa Kapate