Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2076 (RAJ)

Avdesh Amarwal v. M/s. Laxmi Machinery Mart

2013-11-23

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in revision, whereby, the order dated 15.6.2013 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, (N.I. Act Cases), Bhilwara in Complaint Case No. 379/2009 was affirmed. 2. The petitioner being the accused filed an application before the learned Trial Court for summoning the concerned persons of the firm Madhu Nagar and Company to prove in defence that the amount of the cheque had already been repaid to the complainant. The said application was dismissed and the revision petition filed against the said order was also rejected as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's defence all along was that he had made repayment of the amount due to the complainant through a firm Madhu Nagar & Company. Specific pointed questions to this effect were put to the complainant in this regard during cross-examination. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner moved the application for summoning the concerned persons of the firm Madhu Nagar & Company so as to lead evidence in support of his defence theory. He submits that such application was rejected by the learned Trial Court erroneously. Learned counsel thus prays that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to summon the responsible persons of the firm Madhu Nagar & Company for proving his defence. 4. Per contra, Shri A.K. Babel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was vague and belated and, thus, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the said application. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the orders passed by the learned subordinate Courts. 6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant was put a specific question in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused that the amount of the cheque in question was repaid through the firm Madhu Nagar & Company. The defence proposed by the accused thus was that the repayment of the cheque amount was made through that firm. The defence proposed by the accused thus was that the repayment of the cheque amount was made through that firm. In this view of the matter, the accused was indeed entitled to request the learned Trial Court for summoning the concerned persons of the firm Madhu Nagar & Company in defence. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on technical grounds which is not justified. 7. In this view of the matter, the misc. petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order dated 15.6.2013 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, (N.I. Act Cases), Bhilwara in Complaint Case No. 379/2009 as affirmed in revision by the order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 8. The learned Trial Court shall now summon the concerned persons of the firm Madhu Nagar & Company and permit the accused to examine them in defence.Stay petition also stands disposed of. *******