2026:HHC:23662 _____________________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 445 of 2026 Reserved on: 13.05.2026 Date of Decision 22 .06.2026 M/s NTC Exim India Pvt. Ltd. & another ...Petitioner Versus M/s Saboo Tor Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr Devender K. Sharma, vice Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the respondents/ State : Nemo Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the learned Trial Court overruled the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court). (The parties 2 2026:HHC:23662 shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The matter was listed for recording the statements of the complainant’s witnesses on 15.01.2026. Mahendra Pal Sharma, an authorised signatory of the complainant, appeared as a witness. A question was put to him during the cross- examination whether any security cheques were taken by the manager of the company. The witness responded by saying that he was not aware of it. The statement was recorded as ‘I am not aware, cheques were taken by the Manager, or they were not taken’. Learned counsel objected by saying that the witness had not responded so, and the question was not whether any cheque was taken or not. This objection was overruled because the learned counsel had himself asked this question, and the witness had responded. 3 2026:HHC:23662 3. Being aggrieved by the overruling of the objection, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court had wrongly recorded the statement of the witness, which has seriously prejudiced the accused. An objection was taken, but it was overruled. Effective cross-examination is a valuable right of the accused. The proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 4. I have heard Mr Devender K. Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner, who submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in overruling the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 5. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 6. Section 278 Cr.P.C. provides that when the evidence recorded under Section 275 Cr.P.C. or Section 276 4 2026:HHC:23662 Cr.P.C. is completed, it shall be read over to the witness in the presence of the accused or his pleader and shall, if necessary, be corrected. Section 274 of Cr.P.C. deals with the record of summons case and inquiries and provides that the Magistrate shall, as examination of each witness proceeds, make a memorandum of the substance of the evidence in the language of the Court. Thus, the Magistrate is only required to prepare a memorandum in a summons case, which is not even required to be read over and explained to the witness under Section 278, unlike the evidence recorded under Section 275 or Section 276 of the Cr.P.C. This shows that the legislature intended that the memorandum of evidence recorded by a learned Magistrate is final. Therefore, it is impermissible to question the memorandum prepared by the Magistrate in a summons case. 7. The learned Trial Court has specifically noticed in the order that the question was asked from the witness whether any security cheques were taken by the Manager of the company, and the witness responded that he was not aware of it. His statement was recorded as “I am not aware, cheques were taken by the Manager, or they were not taken’. 5 2026:HHC:23662 The record of the learned Trial Court regarding the proceedings conducted before it is sacrosanct and cannot be altered by any other Court. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi, (2003) 6 SCC 573: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 697 that the statement of facts that transpired during the hearing is conclusive and cannot be challenged before another court. It was observed: “11. The rival contentions need careful consideration. There can be a quarrel with the proposition as submitted by Mr Nariman that if an order records something, a party cannot be permitted to plead to the contrary, especially in matters as to whether there was any concession regarding a point, or whether it was given up at the time of the hearing. 12. The only course open to a party taking the stand that an order does not reflect the actual position is to move the High Court in line with what has been said in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak [(1982) 2 SCC 463: 1982 SCC (Cri) 478]. In recent decisions, i.e. Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111: 2002 AIR SCW 4939] and Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani [(2003) 3 Scale 611: (2003) 6 SCC 595], the view in the said case was reiterated. Statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated, and no one can contradict such statements by an affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still 6 2026:HHC:23662 fresh in the minds of the judges, to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to a party to contend before this Court to the contrary. This Court cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy and judicial decorum do not permit it. Matters of judicial record in that sense are unquestionable. However, the Court can pass appropriate orders if a party moves it, contending that the order has not correctly reflected happenings in court.” 8. This position was reiterated in Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 519: 2003 SCC (L&S) 1145: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 554, wherein it was observed at page 524: “11. If really there was no concession, or a different stand was taken, the only course open to the appellant was to move the High Court in line with what has been said in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak [(1982) 2 SCC 463: 1982 SCC (Cri) 478]. In a recent decision Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111: 2002 AIR SCW 4939] the view in the said case was reiterated by observing that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. 7 2026:HHC:23662 It is not open to the appellant to contend before this Court to the contrary.” 9. Therefore, it is impermissible for this Court to say that the record of the learned trial Court was not correctly maintained. 10. The witness whose statement was recorded has not questioned the statement recorded by the Court. He was the person who had made the statement, and he should be the one aggrieved by the recording of his statement. The fact that he had not objected to the record of his statement shows that his statement was correctly recorded. 11. It is trite to say that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised rarely and sparingly to correct a grave error. In the present case, no such error has been shown, and the jurisdiction vested with this Court cannot be exercised. 12. No other point was urged. 13. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed with costs of ₹5000/-, which shall be deposited in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund within a period of four weeks, failing which steps will be taken to recover it as per the law. 8 2026:HHC:23662 14. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. 15. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22nd June, 2026. (ravinder)