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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...
Post a Comment
Read more