Himachal Pradesh HC Clarifies Power To Re-examine Witnesses Under NI Act

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently clarified that Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, though not explicitly mentioning the re-examination of witnesses, encompasses the power of the court to summon and re-examine such witnesses. The ruling was made by Justice Vivek Singh Thakur while hearing a plea in a Section 138 case where the petitioner sought reexamination, which was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate.

The case involved a complaint filed under the NI Act, alleging dishonor of a cheque by the respondent, who was also an employee of the company. During cross-examination, the petitioner admitted this fact, but her counsel did not seek permission for re-examination. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for re-examination, proposing to file an affidavit stating the respondent’s role as the company’s chairman. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that it aimed to rectify the admission and unduly prolong the proceedings.

The trial court dismissed the petitioner’s application, considering it a withdrawal of the admission made during cross-examination, which would favor the petitioner and prejudice the respondent. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The petitioner contended that re-examination was necessary to address the conflicting statements arising during cross-examination and the examination-in-chief. The court, relying on Section 145(2) of the NI Act, noted that a person giving evidence in an affidavit can be summoned and examined by the court based on an application from either party.

The court clarified that although Section 145(2) does not explicitly mention re-examination, the power to summon and examine any person giving evidence in an affidavit also includes the power to re-examine such witnesses. However, it emphasized that filing a new affidavit in the examination-in-chief was not permissible when the petitioner had already filed an affidavit that had been cross-examined. The petitioner could only be summoned for re-examination if there were valid grounds to clarify matters discussed during cross-examination.

The court stressed that the duty of the court is to determine the truth and ensure a just decision, and thus, if a mistake is made by an advocate or a party, the court should allow re-examination within the parameters of the law. Consequently, the petitioner was allowed to be re-examined in court, but filing a fresh affidavit for re-examination was disallowed.