Execution of Cheques Not Disputed by Petitioner; Repeated Efforts to Prolong Trial Observed: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea for Summoning Ex-Director as Defence Witness in Section 138 N.I. Act Case
In a recent judgment, the High Court of Delhi addressed the petitioner’s application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon an ex-director as a defense witness in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, observed, “Execution of cheques not disputed by petitioner; repeated efforts to prolong trial observed.”
Brief on the Legal Point of the Judgment
The primary legal issue revolved around the petitioner’s plea for summoning a defense witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the context of a Section 138 N.I. Act case. The High Court’s decision highlighted the discretionary nature of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and its application in criminal trials.
Facts and Issues in the Judgment
The case, involving International Diamond Services Ltd. As the petitioner and Dimexon Diamond Ltd. As the respondent, stemmed from the dishonour of several cheques issued by the petitioner. The complaint, pending since 2006, involved allegations that the unilateral cancellation of a license by the original complainant, Kirti Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., caused significant losses to the petitioner. The petitioner sought to summon Paresh K. Lal Mehta, an ex-director of Kirti Ornaments, along with specific documents.
Court’s Assessment in Detail
Relevance of Witness: The court noted that the execution of the cheques was not disputed. It questioned the relevance of summoning Paresh K. Lal Mehta, who was no longer associated with the complainant company and likely lacked access to pertinent documents.
Avoiding Prolonged Trials: Justice Mendiratta emphasized that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should not be used as a ploy to delay trial proceedings. Observing the long pendency of the case, the court was inclined against further delaying tactics.
Prior Decisions and Omissions: The court referred to previous decisions where the petitioner’s requests were disallowed and observed material omissions in producing documents from other witnesses already examined.
Essentiality of Witness Testimony: The judge reiterated that the discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is exercised only when the evidence appears essential to a just decision of the case. In this instance, summoning the ex-director was deemed unnecessary.
Decision Considering the facts and circumstances, the court found the petitions devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed them. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the matter expeditiously within six months.
Date of Decision: April 10, 2024
International Diamond Services Ltd vs. Dimexon Diamond Ltd.
