138 ni act substitution of representative of complainant
Sukhija
(Querist) 05 July 2013
This query is : Resolved
Complainant and affidavit in Exam-in-Chief filed by one representative but he was not available for cross on behalf of Accused as he left job.
Now can complainant substitute him with other representative?
Can other representative be cross examined on the affidavit filed by earlier representative?
I am for accused.
Should I object for substitution?
Should I ask him to file Affidavit afresh?
Pl can anyone help me...
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 05 July 2013
You should raise objection for substitution. If they propose fresh affidavit from another person raise objection.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 05 July 2013
Objection won't work if the fresh affidavit is put forth by the complainant side replacing the old representative. This is general practice to replace the representative in companies/firms etc.
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 06 July 2013
Dear Querist
The court have power to allow the substitution of representative of complainant.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 06 July 2013
Now can complainant substitute him with other representative?
YES HE CAN.
Can other representative be cross examined on the affidavit filed by earlier representative?
THE AFFIDAVIT FILED EARLIER would be of no use now unless a fresh one is filled by present representative.However you can exploit the situation usefully if you find some contradiction between the two.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 06 July 2013
raise an objection as trail has already started . the examination in chief is already on record . the respresentaive should make him self available for cross as allowing the application would un necessarily delay the trial.
if the court over rules your objection and allows substitution then fresh affidavit would have to be filed
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 06 July 2013
If earlier representative has left the job then what is the relevance of the objections? Why to delay the process by raising objections?
Anirudh
(Expert) 06 July 2013
In the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand reported in 1998(1) SCC 687, it has been held by the SC that the complainant has to be a corporeal person who is capable of making a physical appearance in the Court. It has been held that if a complaint is made in the name of a incorporeal person (like a company or corporation) it is necessary that a natural person represents such juristic person in the Court. It is held that the Court looks upon the natural person to be the complainant for all practical purposes. It is held that when the complainant is a body corporate it is the de jure complainant, and it must necessarily associate a human being as de facto complainant to represent the former in Court proceedings. It has further been held that no Magistrate shall insist that the particular person, whose statement was taken on oath at the first instance, alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings. It has been held that there may be occasion when different persons can represent the company. It has been held that it is open to the de jure complainant company to seek permission of the Court for sending any other person to represent the company in the Court.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 06 July 2013
Adv Sukhija
U cannot cross examine another person.
It will benefit you, if another person file chief exam, and u cross exam him.
Complainant will fail to prove, accused signed in pr of both!!No personal knowledge of second witness will be fatal for prosecution. [Next person will rely only on official records!! He may not have any personal knowledge.
