Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 407 (ORI)

Santosh Kumar Behera v. Ajaya Amat

2019-06-18

S.K.SAHOO

body2019
JUDGMENT S.K. Sahooj, J. - Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner Santosh Kumar Behera has challenged the impugned order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh in I.C.C. Case No. 208 of 2015 in rejecting his petition filed for issuance of summons to Naresh Kumar Nayak and Akalabya Thakur to produce some documents, which was confirmed by judgment and order dated 21.07.2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Crl. Revision No. 14 of 2018. 3. There is no dispute that the opposite party Ajaya Amat is the complainant in the aforesaid case, which was instituted for commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereafter 'N.I. Act') against the petitioner. In the said case, while the prosecution evidence was going on, the petitioner who is the accused in the case, filed a petition to summon the witnesses Naresh Kumar Nayak and Akalabya Thakur to produce the original agreements executed with them by the petitioner. Learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh held that the documents sought for have no nexus with the case in hand and accordingly, rejected the petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 10.04.2018. The petitioner challenged the said order before the learned revisional Court and the learned revisional Court confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision, which is challenged in this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents sought for have got its relevance to prove the defence plea and therefore, rejection of the application by the learned Magistrate was not proper and justified and by refusing the prayer, the petitioner has been deprived to put-forth his defence plea properly, which would ultimately hamper the result of the case and it may go against him. 5. It is not in dispute that while the prosecution evidence from the side of the complainant was going on, such a petition was filed. section 143 of the N.I. Act states that the offence under section 138 N.I. Act is to be tried summarily and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of Cr.P.C. would be applicable to the trial. section 143 of the N.I. Act states that the offence under section 138 N.I. Act is to be tried summarily and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of Cr.P.C. would be applicable to the trial. Section 262 Cr.P.C., 1973 which deals with procedure for summary trials states that the procedure specified in the Code for the trial of summons case shall be followed. Chapter XX of Cr.P.C. deals with trial of summons cases by Magistrates. section 254 of Cr.P.C., 1973 which comes under that chapter states that the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. 6. Admittedly, in the present case the evidence from the side of the prosecution is continuing. Therefore, I find no illegality in the order of the Courts below. However, at the stage of defence, if any such petition is filed by the defence, the learned trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the previous rejection order. If the learned trial Court thinks it proper for summoning any witnesses or calling for any documents, then the Court shall pass necessary orders. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMC application is disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.