Delhi High Court
Montari Industries Ltd. And Anr. vs State And Anr. on 25 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 114(2004)DLT416, (2005)139PLR31
Author: R.C. Chopra
Bench: R.C. Chopra
JUDGMENT R.C. Chopra, J.
1. These three revision petitions are directed against the impugned orders dated 29.4.2004 and 1.6.2004 passed by the learned Trial Magistrate in three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and others.
2. The impugned orders dated 29.4.2004 disposed of the petitioners applications under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. for directing the complainant to admit or deny the documents being filed by the petitioners. These applications were rejected mainly on the ground that these had been moved at a belated stage and as such, were not maintainable. It was also observed that these applications had been moved in order to delay the trial of the cases.
3. Considering the history of the cases and the order sheets, a copy of which has been placed before this Court by learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, this Court finds that the petitioners have been taking repeated adjournments and trying to delay the disposal of complaints. Vide orders dated 27.3.2004, the defense evidence of the petitioners was ordered to be closed by the Trial Court. Upon filing of revision petitions, however, one more opportunity was granted to the petitioners for producing defense evidence on 1.6.2004 but on the said date also, the defense evidence was not concluded for various reasons and as such, the cases reached the stage of final arguments.
4. In view of the fact that Section 294, Cr.P.C. applications were moved at the fag end of the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Judge was justified in declining the requests. Section 294, Cr.P.C. is aimed at dispensing with formal proof of documents and as such, the admission/denial of documents hs to take place at the initial stage so that after the admission/denial, both the parties have opportunity to prove denied documents or rebut admitted documents or lead evidence to give explanation, if any, in regard to the documents. If admission/ denial is sought to be done at the end of the trial, the party which has completed its evidence may be seriously prejudiced. This course, therefore, cannot be adopted after availing the opportunity to lead evidence or confront the opposite party with documents. It cannot be to spring a surprise and create confusion for the opposite party. Under the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioners to call upon the complaint to admit or deny certain documents at the stage when prosecution evidence was already over and even defense evidence was on its last leg was neither justified nor warranted. Hence, the learned trial Judge was justified in declining the request, This Court does not find any infirmity in the said orders.
5. Coming to the orders dated 1.6.2004, it is found that on 1.6.2004, the petitioner has summoned two defense witnesses. DW 6 was examined but he had not brought with him the summoned records. The witness from M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories appeared through Counsel who made a statement seeking time to produce the relevant records. However, this request was declined in view of the orders passed by the Sessions Court that no further extension of time could be given to the petitioners for producing defense evidence.
6. In the course of argments, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the complainant would be filing affidavits in each of the three complaints giving details of the shares of Ranbaxy Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Bausch & Lomb India Ltd. and Montari Industries Ltd. statedly handed over by the petitioners to the complainant with the dates of the sales thereof as well as the amounts for which those shares were sold. The names of the transferees shall also be given, if available with the complainant.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners agrees that in case these affidavits are filed, the petitioners would not need to lead evidence which they wanted to produce through the two witnesses summoned on 1.6.2004. The arguments before the Trial Court would start after the filing of these affidavits. In case the Trial Court holds that the affidavits filed by the complainant are not in conformity with these orders, the petitioners shall be permitted to lead further defense evidence. However, no dilatory tactic shall be countenanced.
8. No further directions are required to be issued. Revision petitions stand disposed of.
Copy dusty to both the parties.