The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) has clarified that the power of the court under Section 311 of CrPC to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any material witness can be exercised at any stage, and the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar. Rather, the determinative factor is whether the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case.
Thus, the Court ruled that allowing an application under Section 311 of CrPC to clarify inconsistencies regarding payments into different bank accounts for just and complete adjudication does not suffer from manifest impropriety or material irregularity, provided the accused is given an opportunity to controvert and rebut the proposed evidence, thereby causing no substantial prejudice.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar observed that the material on record indicates an amount of Rs. 33 lakhs were transferred to M/s Rahil Enterprises on Dec 12, 2018 from the account of M/s Investicon Financials through its proprietor Malay Nahar (HUF). M/s Rahil Enterprises paid Rs. 8 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs into the account of M/s Investicon Financials through its proprietor Malay Nahar (individual capacity) on the same day, meaning the amount was not paid into the same account.
The Single Judge observed that the question of whether the accused had remitted the amount on the same day towards the same transaction in another account, or whether the deposit relates to another distinct transaction, would be determined on appreciation of evidence and overall circumstances. The Bench noted that the trial court, in order to clarify the inconsistency regarding the payment into the other account and considering the circumstances, concluded that the proposed evidence is proper for just and complete adjudication of the dispute.
The Bench observed that the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary or without application of mind. It further observed that the petitioner/accused will have the opportunity to controvert the proposed evidence and to rebut it by proposing defence evidence, hence no substantial prejudice would be caused to the accused. It also explained that the broad powers under Section 311 of CrPC are governed by the requirement of justice, and the power must be exercised wherever the court finds that any evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar.
Briefly, a complaint was filed by Investicon Financials through its proprietor Malay Nahar (HUF) against Rahil Enterprise through Proprietor Chandan Sanghavi under Section 420 of IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that an amount of Rs. 33 lakhs were advanced as a loan to the accused, in lieu of which a duly signed cheque of SBI was given to the complainant, which was dishonoured due to ‘insufficient fund’, upon presentation.
On conclusion of the trial, when the matter was reserved for passing of final judgment, the complainant filed an application under Section 311 of CrPC proposing certain documents and for recalling the complainant and examining the Chartered Accountant, Deepesh Jain. The complainant filed another application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for permission to file a bank certificate regarding the transfer of the loan amount. This was allowed by the Trial Court.
The petitioner challenged this order under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/482 of CrPC, contending that the application was filed to fill up the lacuna pointed out in the written submissions filed by the accused in the final arguments, as the accused had already raised the defence of having paid the amount in the account of the complainant. The respondent contended that the loan was extended from the HUF account, whereas the accused remitted the loan to the proprietor’s individual capacity account, making them entirely different transactions, and the trial Court rightly exercised its power to remove any doubt.
Appearances:
Advocates Pankaj Khandelwal and Jhanvi Saraf, for the Petitioner
Advocate Akshat Pahadiya, for the Respondent
