Mukesh Kumar vs. Rajesh Kumar

Held

The High Court held that when additional documents pertaining to the respondent, including GST returns, were placed on record after the respondent had already been cross-examined, it was imperative to grant the petitioner an opportunity to further cross-examine the witness to the extent of these newly introduced documents. The Court found the approach of the courts below in rejecting the application to be erroneous. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders of the trial court and the revisional court. The petitioner was directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 3000/- to be paid to the complainant. The Court clarified that the cross-examination should be limited to the extent of the documents brought on record later and should not be used to fill up lacunae. The Court also directed that no further adjournment would be granted and the trial court should endeavor to dispose of the case expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, is an accused facing trial for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the trial, he sought to recall the respondent/complainant for further cross-examination after certain documents, including GST returns, income tax returns, and audit reports pertaining to the respondent, were brought on record via an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court initially allowed the application for documents but later rejected the petitioner's subsequent application to recall the witness. This rejection was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner then filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court challenging these orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the concurrent orders of the lower courts rejecting the petitioner's application to recall the respondent/complainant for further cross-examination, particularly after the introduction of new documents (GST returns, income tax returns, audit reports) under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that once new documents relevant to the respondent's accounts and transactions were brought on record after the initial cross-examination, it was imperative to allow the recall of the witness to facilitate further cross-examination on these newly introduced documents. He contended that the rejection of his application by the courts below was erroneous and prejudiced his defence. Respondent's contention: The respondent vehemently opposed the prayer, submitting that since the petitioner/accused had already cross-examined the complainant, there was no necessity to recall the witness. He supported the impugned orders passed by the lower courts.