Change Of Counsel Is No Ground To Recall Witness U/S 311 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The bench comprising Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi placed reliance on Supreme Court's judgement in Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana and held that the Court has vast powers that can be invoked to secure the ends of justice including summoning and examining or recalling and re-examining any person. But such power is exercised only if his evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.

The court was dealing with a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing order passed by JMIC, Amritsar in complaint registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide which the application moved by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 CrPC was dismissed.

The facts of the instant case were that the respondent-HDFC Bank filed a complaint against the petitioner who is the authorised signatory of M/s EMM EMM Constructions with the allegations that the post-dated cheque issued by the petitioner to repay the loan taken by the firm was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds.

After considering the rival submission of the parties, the court noted that the present application is a delaying tactic by the petitioner/accused.

In the present case a perusal of the application and reply filed thereon would clearly establish that the moving of the present application is a delaying tactic on the part of the petitioner/accused. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is pending since 2016 and has not been decided uptill now. As per the reply, virtually every interim order has been challenged by the petitioner-accused. A number of applications have been filed during the course of proceedings, all of which have delayed the conclusion of trial.

As far as the facts and circumstances of the instant application are concerned, the court noted that the recall, re-cross examination of the complainant is sought by the petitioner-accused on account of change of counsel which is no ground for recall of witness.

As far as the complaint not having been filed by a lawful attorney is concerned, the court noted that in the instant case, the complaint has been filed by a Bank which is a juristic person that can deputy any officer of his choice to represent the bank with permission of the Court and in the instant case, the attorney holder Rajinder Parshad was allowed by the court to represent the bank.

Once the court had already allowed the application for substitution of the attorney of Rajinder Parshad in place of the previous attorney then the question of complaint not having been filed by a lawful attorney and that question being needed to be put to the witness in re-cross examination does not arise.

Court finally concluded that the instant application seems to have been filed to further delay the proceedings.

Accordingly, this court dismissed the petition finding it sans merit.

Case Title: Rajinder Trehan. Versus M/s HDFC Bank Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 232 

Click Here To Read/Download Order