Karamjit Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 19 January, 2009

Crl.Rev. No.2105 of 2007                                             1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH.

                                      Crl.Rev. No.2105 of 2007
                                      Date of Decision: 19.1.2009

Karamjit Singh and another                             .....Petitioners

                              Vs.
State of Punjab                                        ....Respondent
                              ....

CORAM :     HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

                              ****

Present : Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Gazi Mohd. Umair, DAG, Punjab for the respondent.

….

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the order dated 22.10.2007, passed

by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, dismissing an

application for summoning an officer from Kotak Mohindra Bank, Mumbai,

with the record of encashment of account payee draft No.1978-750023,

issued in favour of the complainant by Punjab National Bank branch

Shankar.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant alleges

that an amount of Rs.6.00 lacs was paid to the petitioners, by the

aforementioned demand draft for sending the complainant abroad. It is

submitted that as per information available with the petitioners, the draft

was encashed by the complainant at Kotak Mohindra Bank, Mumbai. It

would, therefore, be necessary to summon the record relating to the

encashment of the aforementioned draft.

Crl.Rev. No.2105 of 2007 2

Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submits that

the petitioners have taken a large number of opportunities to lead evidence

in defence. The petitioners assertion that the demand draft was encashed by

the complainant cannot be permitted at this belated stage, as evidence is

complete and the matter is awaiting the outcome of the present petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned order.

It is an established principle that cogent and reliable evidence,

that would enable an accused in furthering his defence, can not be rejected

by resort to technicalities. The petitioners assertion that the demand draft,

whereby payment was allegedly made to them was actually encashed by

Malkiat Singh at Mumbai, is a significant circumstance that would further

the petitioners defence that they have not received any amount from the

complainant. The trial Court, apparently confused the issue by holding that

encashment of the bank draft can be established by producing a certified

copy of the petitioners accounts. Its preparation or encashment cannot be

proved by the petitioners producing their accounts.

In view of what has been stated herein above, the revision

petition is allowed. The order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar is set aside. The matter is remitted

to the trial Court to consider the application afresh and in accordance with

law.

Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on

24.2.2009.

19.1.2009                                          (RAJIVE BHALLA)
GS                                                      JUDGE