Prakash Chimanlal Sheth vs State And Another

Subhasis Dasgupta, J

The impugned order dated 22nd November, 2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-I at Port Blair in C.R. Case No.62 of 2018 under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act declining to cross-examine the complainant/PW-1 on the ground of cease work being observed by the

local bar association upon taking a resolution therefor and thereby adjourning the case for cross-examination of PW-1 is the subject of challenge in this

revisional application.

Learned advocate for the petitioner/complainant Mr. P. Munda submits that the cheque amount involved in this case is for Rs. 97.00 lakhs which was

dishonoured for insufficiency of fund. Referring to pendency of the case, learned advocate for the petitioner/complainant contends that the

petitioner/complainant has been made to face unnecessary hardship by reason of prosecution being protracted unnecessarily for the cease work being

observed by the learned advocates of the local bar association causing serious prejudice to the right of the complainant guaranteed under the law.

In view of such huge amount of money being involved in this case, learned advocate for the petitioner/complainant proposes for a direction to be given

so that the Trial Court may be made to expedite the trial with collection of necessary evidence, to be adduced by the complainant prosecution for the

purpose.

Learned advocate representing the private respondent No.2, Mrs. Nag, controverting the submission raised by the petitioner submits that the

prosecution launched by the complainant has not been made to suffer protraction at the instance of the accused/private opposite party, but by the

complainant himself for the reasons best known to complainant.

Mrs. Nag representing private opposite party No. 2 candidly submits that a direction may be given requiring the Trial Court to resume cross-

examination on the date, so scheduled, after affording the accused/opposite party with necessary opportunity for the purpose, so that the necessary

defence may be put up effectively by the process of cross-examination.

Admittedly, a complaint was initiated in the year 2018 involving an amount of Rs. 97.00 lakhs, and the cheque having been dishonoured on the ground

of insufficiency of fund, the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was initiated.

Upon perusal of the certified copy of the order of the lower court, as produced by Mrs. Nag, it appears that several dates were adjourned for cross-

examination of PW-1. Indubitably, the cross-examination of the PW-1 could not be resumed and concluded for an abstaining programme being

observed by the local bar association preventing the learned advocates belonging to such local bar association from taking part in the Court

proceedings. In obedience to such resolution having adopted already by the local bar association, the learned advocate representing the private

opposite party conspicuously could not take part in the Court proceedings for resuming cross-examination, favourale to the purpose of defence.

Both the learned advocate are, however, ad idem on the issue that the Court proceeding fixed on the scheduled date was interrupted for the cease

work having observed by the local bar association. That being the position, the learned Court below had no other alternative, but to adjourn the case

for the cross-examination of complainant PW-1.

Having heard learned advocates of both sides, this Court is of the view that the instant revisional application may be disposed of right now giving

suitable direction for the purpose enabling the private opposite party to resume cross-examination of PW-1 and conclude the same after necessary

cross-examination, so that there cannot be any further delay to the disposal of this case.

Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-I at Port Blair in connection with CR case No. 62 of 2018 is directed to resume cross-examination on the date

scheduled providing sufficient opportunity to the private opposite party No. 2 and also bearing in mind that the case is not delayed anymore, and after

the collection of evidence, the case may be decided in accordance with law in a most expeditious manner, without granting unnecessary adjournment,

unless it is unavoidable.

With this direction and observation, the revisional application stands disposed of.

The petitioner is directed to make communication of this order to the learned Court below.

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.