Madras High Court Sets Aside Trial Court’s Order Allowing Recall of Witness in Cheque Bounce Case

SEO Keywords: Madras High Court, Cheque Bounce Case, Section 311 CrPC, Criminal Original Petition, Recall of Witness, Section 482 CrPC, Small Causes Court, PW1 cross-examination, Trial Court order, Criminal Law

The High Court of Madras recently adjudicated a Criminal Original Petition filed by the complainant in a cheque bounce case, seeking to overturn the order passed by the Small Causes Court. The lower court had allowed an application for the recall of PW1 (Prosecution Witness 1) for cross-examination, which the complainant argued was a tactic to delay the proceedings.

Background of the Case:

The petitioner, who is also the complainant in the cheque bounce case, argued that the respondent (accused) was deliberately prolonging the trial. The evidence of PW1 had been closed due to the accused’s consistent absence. As the case was nearing completion and had been scheduled for final arguments, the accused sought to further delay the process by filing an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to recall PW1 for cross-examination, purportedly without sufficient cause.

Despite these concerns, the Small Causes Court granted the application, stating, “It is clearly seen that the petitioner is dragging the case. However, the opportunity must be given to the other side to establish their case, hence in the interest of justice, this petition is allowed on cost Rs.2,000.”

High Court’s Observation:

Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran, presiding over the matter, observed that the accused had already been given four opportunities to cross-examine PW1, which he failed to utilize. The High Court noted that the application under Section 311 CrPC did not provide a sufficient reason for recalling the witness. The trial court, in its impugned order, failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision to allow the recall of the witness.

In light of these observations, the High Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, setting aside the recall order passed by the Trial Court. The High Court emphasized that the justice system should not allow unnecessary delays that compromise the efficient administration of justice.

This decision underscores the court’s commitment to preventing dilatory tactics in legal proceedings, ensuring that cases are resolved in a timely manner while upholding the principles of justice.

For ongoing updates and detailed coverage of this event and other political developments, visit Kanishk Social Media. If you found this article informative, please share it with others interested in legal and political affairs.