K.Harshakumar vs T.S.Sajith on 11 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 93 of 2006(T)


1. K.HARSHAKUMAR, S/O.KUMARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. T.S.SAJITH, S/O.THANKAPPAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.MADHU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :11/07/2008

 O R D E R
                          R.BASANT, J.
                       ----------------------
                      Crl.M.C.No.93 of 2006
                   ----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 11th day of July 2008

                              O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The signature in

the cheque does not appear to be disputed. It appears that there

was no reply to the notice of demand. In the course of the trial

various defences were taken up. There was a contention that

there was no consideration for the cheque. In the course of

cross-examination complainant was cross-examined and he

stated that the transaction will be reflected in his income tax

returns and he has no objection in producing the same.

Thereafter the accused filed a petition to call upon the

complainant to produce the income tax return (saral form) which

he had offered to produce in the course of cross-examination.

The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the

same.

2. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for

the respondent submits that the respondent/complainant has no

objection against producing the income tax return (saral form)

Crl.M.C.No.93/2006 2

submitted by him to the authorities which has been

acknowledged. That takes me to the end of the controversy. The

respondent shall produce the income tax return (saral form) for

the year 2003-2004 called for by the petitioner before the

learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from this date.

If the same is not produced the petitioner can request the

learned Magistrate to draw appropriate inference in accordance

with law.

3. This petition is accordingly allowed as indicated

above.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

Crl.M.C.No.93/2006 3

Crl.M.C.No.93/2006 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.No. of 2008

ORDER

09/07/2008