M/S Royal Pipe And Senetary Stores Dwara Propriter Girraj Bansal vs. Swatantra Kumar Goyal

Held

The High Court held that the Courts below had passed well-reasoned orders and found no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the rejection of the petitioner's applications under Sections 311 and 91 Cr.P.C. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the recall or re-examination of the witness was essential for the just decision of the case. The Court noted that the scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited and found no grounds for invoking inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Royal Pipe and Sanitary Stores, filed a complaint alleging that the accused purchased sanitary goods worth ₹2,03,387/- on credit and issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to the account being closed. Despite a demand notice, no payment was made. During the trial, the accused sought GST certificates under Section 91 Cr.P.C., which the trial court directed the complainant to produce. After cross-examination concluded, the complainant's application to exhibit previously submitted documents was rejected, as was a subsequent application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The revision petition before the Sessions Court was also dismissed. The petitioner then filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Courts below erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall and re-examination of a witness, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice? (Question of law and fact, concerning the just decision of the case). 2. Whether the Revisional Court committed an error by mechanically affirming the Trial Court's findings without independently examining if the essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust were prima facie made out? (Question of law, concerning judicial review). Petitioner's Arguments: Both courts below failed to appreciate the material evidence. The Trial Court wrongly dismissed the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application without considering sufficient material for issuance of process. The Revisional Court erred by mechanically affirming the Trial Court's findings without independent examination of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The dismissal by both courts amounts to a miscarriage of justice, and the impugned orders should be set aside with directions for recall and re-examination of the witness. Revenue/State's Arguments: Not recorded in the judgment.