Crl. Misc. No. M- 6030 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 6030 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 22, 2010 M/s Mahakali Processors Limited and another ........Petitioners Versus Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the order dated 17.2.2009 (Annexure P-4), whereby application moved by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of witness C.L. Garcha was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the complaint CW C.L. Garcha, Deputy General Manager (Accounts) has been authorized to institute and pursue the complaint vide resolution passed by the Board dated 24.6.2000. C.L. Garcha appeared in the witness box as C.W.2 and proved the said resolution dated 24.6.2000 as Ex.CW1. However, now the application had been moved to prove authorization from Assistant Managing Director/ Managing Director of the Corporation Crl. Misc. No. M- 6030 of 2010 (O&M) 2 authorizing CW C.L. Garcha to file the complaint. The authorization now sought to be proved was never pleaded in the complaint and hence the same could not be proved at this stage. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Para 1 of the complaint (Annexure P-1) reads as under :- “ 1. That the complaint is a Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and its object is promotion of industry and recycling of funds and having its registered office at Udyog Bhawan, 18 Himalaya Marg, Sector 17, P. Box No.81, Chandigarh. Sh. C.L. Garcha, Deputy General Manager (Accounts), is duly competent and authorized to institute and pursue the present complaint vide Board Resolution dated 24.6.2000 of the complainant Corporation and being conversant with the facts of the present case, as per record can depose accordingly, therefore, the present complaint is being instituted through him. The certified copy of the Resolution dated 24.6.2000 is annexed herewith.” Thus, as per the complaint C.L. Garcha, Deputy General Manager (Accounts) has been authorized to institute and pursue the complaint vide resolution passed by the Board dated 24.6.2000. There is no mention in the said paragraph or in the remaining part of the complaint that any authorization had been granted by Assistant Managing Director/Managing Director of the Corporation whereby CW C.L. Garcha was authorized to institute and pursue the complaint. The Corporation led its evidence in support of his case. C.L. Garcha appeared as C.W.2 and also proved the resolution dated 24.6.2000 as Ex.C.W.1. Thereafter, the complainant- Crl. Misc. No. M- 6030 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Corporation closed its evidence and the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. When the case was listed for defence evidence, the application was moved by the Corporation under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-examine CW C.L. Garcha to prove the authorization granted by Assistant Managing Director/Managing Director of the Company. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under :- “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present :- “Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” Although, as per the said provision the Court may at any stage re-examine any witness already examined if it appears to be essential for the just decision of the case, but in the present case the application moved by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was liable to be dismissed. In the complaint, there is no mention qua authorization given by Assistant Managing Director/Managing Director of the Corporation, which is now sought to be proved on record. At the time of filing of the complaint reliance was placed on resolution passed by the Board dated 24.6.2000, whereby CW C.L. Garcha was authorized to institute and pursue the complaint. The said resolution has already been proved on record. In these circumstances, the application filed by the complainant was liable to be dismissed. Crl. Misc. No. M- 6030 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.2.2009, whereby the trial Court has allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant is set aside. Consequently, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., moved by the complainant, is dismissed. (SABINA) November 22, 2010 JUDGE Anand