The Karnataka High Court recently ruled on Criminal Petition No. 4877 of 2024 involving M/s Steel Rocks Inc. and its proprietor, R. Shakthi Kumar, as petitioners, and M/s Bangalore Elevated Tollway Pvt. Ltd. (BETPL) as the respondent. The matter revolves around a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which deals with cheque bounce offenses.
BETPL, a private toll road maintenance and collection company, filed a complaint against Steel Rocks for failing to execute a construction contract on the Hosur-Bangalore Highway, initiated in August 2016. Steel Rocks had issued a cheque for ₹25 lakhs to BETPL, which was returned due to insufficient funds, leading to the legal proceedings.
Key Legal Issues
The primary legal issue in this petition was whether the petitioners could recall a prosecution witness, PW-1, for further cross-examination under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The petitioners argued that their new counsel found gaps in the cross-examination conducted by their previous counsel, who had passed away in April 2023. Thus, they sought permission to recall PW-1, which the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, had rejected earlier.
The court examined whether changing counsel could be a valid ground for allowing further cross-examination, given that PW-1 had already been cross-examined twice during previous proceedings.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Justice M. Nagaprasanna presided over the petition and delivered the judgment on October 21, 2024. The court rejected the petitioners’ plea, emphasizing that mere change of counsel is not sufficient grounds for recalling a witness, especially when extensive cross-examination has already taken place. The court highlighted the following important principles:
1. Extensive Cross-Examination: The court noted that PW-1 had been cross-examined at length on multiple occasions in 2019 and 2021, with additional opportunities provided thereafter. The matter had reached a stage where the defense evidence was to be led.
2. Delay and Abuse of Process: The court observed that allowing a further recall of the witness at this stage could lead to unnecessary delays, citing that the case had already been pending for seven years.
3. Precedents Cited: The court referred to judgments from the Supreme Court, including Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) and Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013), which laid down that recalling a witness under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. should be based on strong and valid reasons, rather than being a routine practice. Justice Nagaprasanna stated:
“Mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to allow the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.”
4. No New Material: The petitioners failed to present any new evidence or material necessitating further cross-examination of PW-1. The court reiterated that the purpose of Section 311 is to ensure a fair trial, not to rectify strategic errors or fill gaps in the defence’s case.
5. Fair Trial and Judicial Discretion: Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that while a fair trial is a constitutional right, the trial’s fairness must extend to all parties, including the complainant, who should not be subjected to undue delays.
Conclusion and Direction
The High Court directed the lower court to expedite the proceedings, ensuring they conclude within four months of receiving the order. The interim order, if any, was dissolved. The ruling aims to balance the accused’s right to a fair trial with preventing potential abuse of the judicial process through repeated adjournments and witness recalls.
Case title: M/s Steel Rocks Inc. & Anr. vs. M/s Bangalore Elevated Tollway Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 4877 of 2024
Counsel and Parties Involved
The petitioners were represented by Sri K.N. Karunashankar, while the respondents were represented by Sri Sridhar Prabhu. The initial proceedings were held in the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, before being escalated to the High Court.
