Re-examination of a witness is a statutory right granted under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Re-trial in Rs. 40 Lakh Cheque Bounce Case
In a significant development, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside a previous judgment by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shimla, which acquitted Jasbinder Singh in a cheque bounce case involving Rs. 40 lakh. The High Court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, has ordered a re-trial, emphasizing the importance of the complainant's statutory right to re-examine witnesses under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Krishan Kumar Kotvi against Jasbinder Singh, alleging that Singh issued a cheque for Rs. 40 lakh to settle a legal liability, which was later dishonored by the bank due to a "payment stopped by the drawer" endorsement. The complainant, Kotvi, argued that the cheque was intended as a settlement for his share in stocks handed over to Singh, following their business partnership.
The initial trial court acquitted Singh, reasoning that the cheque was issued merely as security and that the financial liability had been settled by Singh. This decision was based on the testimony of Anil Kumar Sachdeva (CW3) and the clearance certificate from the bank. However, Kotvi contested the trial court's findings, asserting that the liability was settled by him, not Singh, and sought re-examination of Sachdeva to clarify discrepancies in the evidence.
Kotvi's appeal highlighted procedural lapses in the trial court's decision, particularly the dismissal of his application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which sought to summon additional witnesses and verify crucial documents. The High Court criticized the trial court for denying the re-examination of witnesses and dismissing the application without due consideration, thus preventing the complainant from presenting a complete case.
Justice Kainthla underscored the complainant's right to re-examine witnesses to explain cross-examination matters, as mandated by Section 138 of the Evidence Act. The judgment referenced several precedents, including the Calcutta High Court's ruling in Raghu Nath Biswas v. Rabi Ram Chandra Jaladhar, reinforcing the principle that re-examination is an absolute right for explaining matters raised during cross-examination.
The High Court's decision mandates the recall of Anil Kumar for re-examination, allowing the trial court to reassess the evidence afresh. The judgment reiterates the necessity of proving document contents through witness examination, dismissing the notion that mere signature verification suffices.
Both parties are directed to appear before the Shimla trial court on August 27, 2025, for further proceedings. The High Court's order aims to ensure a fair trial by permitting the introduction of new evidence and re-evaluating the case based on a thorough examination of all facts.
Krishan Kumar Kotvi v. Jasbinder Singh, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2762978
