Skip to main content

'Accused Can Examine Witness' - Madras HC

Observing that the right of the accused to have his witnesses examined or to have documents produced on his behalf cannot be denied, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has allowed a petition and permitted the revision petitioner to adduce defence witnesses, which was earlier denied by the Kulithurai Judicial Magistrate Court.

The case is that on August 6, 2004, one T Hentry, the petitioner/accused, borrowed Rs.2 lakh from one P Natarajan (complainant) to discharge a debt and on the same day, the petitioner issued a cheque dated December 6, 2004 for a sum of Rs. 2 lakh drawn on State Bank of India, Karungal Branch.

The cheque was presented on January 6, 2005 for collection in Tamil Nadu Merchantile Bank at Pallihadi and the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds.. Thereafter, on February 1, 2005, Natarajan issued a statutory notice to which the petitioner sent a reply disputing all the averments stated in the notice.

The complainant had himself examined as a prosecution witness in the lower court. Thereafter, the petitioner wanted to have defence witnesses examined and submitted a list of defence witnesses and filed a petition under Section 254(2) CrPC praying the court to issue summons to those witnesses.

The said petition was opposed by the complainant and was dismissed by the Kulithurai Magistrate on the ground that the petition was filed by the accused only to drag on the proceedings and since the case is pending for arguments it was not open to the accused to file a petition under Section 254(2) CrPC to examine the witnesses stated in the witness schedule.

Aggrieved by this the petitioner approached the High Court here. The petitioner submitted that as per the complainant’s statement, he borrowed the amount at the complainant’s residence but the fact is that he was in a remote village in Nellore in Andhra Pradesh for his treatment.

To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, the witnesses cited by him in the witness schedule have to be necessarily examined. The petitioner pointed out that the witnesses cited in the list are necessary to prove that he was in Nellore taking treatment from a private medical practitioner.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent pointed out that attempt of the petitioner is only to protract the proceedings and that witnesses list are not concerned with the case.

 Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Accused-Can-Examine-Witness/2014/03/11/article2102188.ece#.Ux8jl_mSzl8

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more