Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 607 (MP)

Ramesh Chand Verma v. Central Bank of India

2015-06-15

B.D.RATHI

body2015
ORDER 1. In view of the order dated 26.8.2014, the order dated 30.8.2013 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6797/2013 has been perused. This revision has already been restored vide order dated 30.8.2013. 2. By invoking the supervisory powers of this Court, petitioner has preferred this petition under section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') calling in question the impugned order dated 17.6.2011 passed by learned trial Court whereby the prayer of petitioner with regard to taking the deposit slips on record and further cross-examine the complainant has been turned down. 3. Petitioner has preferred this petition seeking following relief: “By allowing this petition, the order dated 17.6.2011 passed by learned trial Court be quashed and trial Court be directed to take the deposit receipts dated 10.10.2007 and 15.3.2008 on record and permit the petitioner to further cross-examine the complainant in relation to aforesaid deposit slips.” 4. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent has filed a private complaint for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After taking evidence of both the parties, learned trial Court closed the evidence and fixed the case for final arguments. At this stage, an application has been preferred by the petitioner/accused to take the deposit slip bearing No.97828 dated 10.10.2007 of Rs.35,000/- and 95702 dated 15.3.2008 of Rs.40,000/-. This application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.6.2011 on the ground that the case is already fixed for final arguments and it has been observed that documents in question were well within the knowledge and possession of petitioner but no reason has been assigned that why these receipts were not produced earlier. 5. One more application was dismissed on the same day seeking the relief that accused may be permitted to further cross-examine the complainant in relation to payment slips. This application was also dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that aforesaid payment slips have not been taken on record and application in that regard has already been dismissed, therefore, this application for further cross-examination is also dismissed. 6. This application was also dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that aforesaid payment slips have not been taken on record and application in that regard has already been dismissed, therefore, this application for further cross-examination is also dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one more opportunity be given to the petitioner to produce the aforesaid payment slips before the Court just to show that out of total amount, certain amount has already been deposited and to arrive at a conclusion it is also necessary to put certain questions in cross-examination to complainant, therefore, he be also permitted to do further cross-examination on the complainant. 7. Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, impugned order dated 17.6.2011 passed by learned trial Court has been perused. 8. On perusal, it seems that nowhere it has been found by the trial Court that aforesaid deposit slips are forged or false. Such kind of objection was also not raised by the respondent. Litigation is pending before the trial Court under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in relation to payment of certain amount of cheque. If the accused wants to show that certain amount has already been paid by these receipts then there is no reason why opportunity be not given. On the other way, if opportunity is given then complainant/respondent has full opportunity to explain in relation to payment made by these receipts whether payment was made or not. In any way, complainant will not be prejudice if revision is allowed. 9. Only on the ground of causing delay, petitioner/accused could not be restrained to put his defence before the Court for the purpose of arriving at right conclusion. 10. In view of the aforesaid, in the interest of justice, revision preferred by the petitioner is allowed. Learned trial Court is directed to take both the payment slips on record and thereafter case be fixed for cross-examination of complainant, only for a limited scope for abovementioned two payment slips. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.8.2015 and on that day itself the accused will complete the further cross-examination on complainant or on any other date fixed by the trial Court. Thereafter, trial Court is free to hear final arguments as per convenience and pronounce final verdict in accordance with law. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.8.2015 and on that day itself the accused will complete the further cross-examination on complainant or on any other date fixed by the trial Court. Thereafter, trial Court is free to hear final arguments as per convenience and pronounce final verdict in accordance with law. 11. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.