When court can permit to examine two authorized representatives of company in cheque dishonour case?

Since the complainant company is permitted to change
its authorized representative, I am of the view that there is
no bar under the law to record the evidence of Aditya
Dhanania as P. W. 2 though he represented the
complainant company at the initial stage of the proceedings
and was subsequently substituted by Sumit Seksaria. The
complainant company has the right to adduce further
evidence in support of the case made out by the
complainant after adducing evidence of the authorized
representative of the complainant company. That apart, the
defence will not be prejudiced for recording evidence of
Aditya Dhanania as P. W. 2, because the defence will get
ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness in order to
test the veracity of the statement given by the witness and
also to demolish the evidence given by the witness. The
logical inference of my above observation is that the
impugned order passed by learned Magistrate is liable to be
set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Present :
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Bag
CRR 1417 of 2014

M/s Jilco Securities Limited
-Versus
Dinesh
Navinchand Desai

Judgment On: 21.07.2014
Citation;2015(3) crimes 622 Cal

Print Page