After Three Missed Dates, Karnataka HC Gives Cheque-Bounce Accused Another Cross-Examination Chance On Payment Of ₹2,000 Costs

The petitioner faced separate prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

In C.C. No. 29179/2017, the Magistrate rejected his application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), concerning further cross-examination of a defence witness, and later partly allowed an application to summon a witness, permitting examination of the petitioner’s wife but not the additional witness sought to support an alibi.

The petitioner challenged both orders in Crl.P. No. 1792/2021.

In the separate C.C. No. 30836/2017, he challenged an order dated 19 January 2021 refusing to permit examination of additional witnesses in support of an alibi; that matter was brought in Crl.P. No. 1489/2021.

The respondents were served but did not appear.

The applications and challenges arose under Section 311 CrPC, which empowers the court to summon, examine, recall, or re-examine a witness, and Section 482 CrPC, invoked to seek the High Court’s inherent intervention.

The underlying prosecutions were under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court cited no precedent and did not set out a broader legal test; it assessed the circumstances and reasons given by the trial court in deciding whether to intervene.

In C.C. No. 29179/2017, the trial court had noted that the petitioner failed to attend on three dates, including by video conference, after the matter was posted for further cross-examination.

Nevertheless, because the relevant dates fell during the COVID-19 period and an SOP was in force, the High Court considered it appropriate to grant one further opportunity, subject to payment of costs and attendance on the next hearing date.

The Court declined to disturb the separate order permitting the petitioner’s wife to testify: the trial court had reasoned that no suggestion concerning the alibi had been put to the complainant, and the High Court found no basis to set aside that reasoned order.

In C.C. No. 30836/2017, the Court likewise declined intervention, noting that the trial court had already permitted the petitioner’s wife to be examined and had reasonably refused the request to examine two additional witnesses.

The challenge to the order dated 19 January 2021 was rejected.

Crl.P. No. 1489/2021 was dismissed.

The trial court was directed to dispose of the matters expeditiously, as they dated from 2017.