....s¥u.re$.~i.1;;--Nsmiéhan}:§V;.iain
Ages.-3 about_ years
Occ: Business
~.R/<}.'R}XT!!IA', 2'13 Main
' " D.'T'.Co11cgc
Nagar
. lL¥harWad--58O O04. ...Respo1:1dent
Common in ail pcfifions
(By Sri Sanket M.Yenagi, Adv.,)
These cximinal petiticns axe filed unéer section 482
Cr.P.C.pmying to set aside the order éated 19.4.2008 in
: 2 :
Cr1.RP.Nos.242/O7, 244/97, 245/07, 245/07 and 243107
respectiveiy on the fiie of the Pri. S.J., Dhaxwad confgiming
the order dated 53.11.2007 ix: C.C.NOS.605/O6, _.{}6,
609/06, 638/06 and 605/O6 respectively on the $1313" of 'figs "I K
Add}. (3.4 (*Jr.D13..) asampc, Dharwazi. ".. '
These petitions coming on for a{imiss§o"1i' _t]':1eu " "
Court made the foiiowing: " " «
0 R»-Q E A
Ail these revimlon
made in Cr1.R.P.24f2/ énqd flit: of
the Principal Sessions Juege,_ 1
" :B:;*ie{f for disposal of these
petitions _v.étsv.f<3iiQvV&*s; °
'5;,PefifiQnef .fa_qj11g trial in ac Nos.6€)5/2006, 608/O6,
and CC No.243[()6. These cases are
oompiamt filed by respondent section 200
— Cr.P .{3.
V n ; A_ It “is the ease of respondent that petitiener used to
.’ gmvceries from the shop of respondent and on that
“”a§:cou33t petiifioner was $116: in a sum of Rs.17,34,666/– to
responéent. The petitioner had made certain payments and
a sum of Rs.4,0?’,136/- through a bankegqcheque. After
{,4
_ y
: 3 :
deducting aforestated payments petitiener was found Vdtie in
a sum of Rs.13,27,S5{)/~. in order to
petitioner issued 4 cheques in all for M
Rs.13,2′?,55{)f~ to respondent. V’
were dishonored. The dishonor of .’
‘issuance of statutory notice. Vt feply ”
notice denying his tq. ‘ amofizlt. The
petitioner contended t11uétt’tfihe sum Of Rs.6
iakhs from the 1fe3p__0ndeiit;’ ‘ ‘had given blank
cheques as promptly repaid the saié
loan amew:tt,»b1’1t’ did not return the cheques.
Thereibze, petitjefiiet” hes fienied the allegation that he has
“ejfenee under seetien 138 of Negetiabie
A Ag;-¢.–?
h’ the evidence of complainant (Iesponcient)
“W-‘ae..4_c}eé§ed petitiener was examined under secfion 313, the
.’ ‘pvefitieeer mach: three applications invoking previsions of
t ‘”Sec.91 and 243 Cr.P.C and under secfion 45 of the Evidence
Aet. The learned trial Judge dismissed the applications.
Aggrieved by the same petitioner was before revisiona} court.
The revisional court has concurred with the fm&ix1gsV.of the
trial court; and dismissed the revision petitions.
petitioner is before this Court.
4. I have heard ieanmd CouI3s’e 1j.for»
learned Counsel for rcspondegy
5. The learned, Coungei.£’or_pé*1;itio;oér~rfc:1yi£ig on the
judgment of Supreme 2.2008 AIR SC!!!
3349. has subggitfiod t}1é1f”1:::o’ti.§;io1;§er’ right to lead
defenckf: evidoii{:c of _Sec.243. The court cazmot
rofust: to__ ‘go’: the witnesses cited by the
pcztitjliznrqrj aoc:-:$€:d;” Tfae court shoulé have extztndcd its
” “asSi3taiioe “to petitioner] accused to secure his witnesses
Iearned Counsel Wouki further submit that
pétifioner :(:1enie£3. his signature on the cheque in dispute.
The ytifioner has taken specific conteniion that contents of
ohequfis were fxiied up by some other person on
V. gfifiemnt dates. Thenifom, those facts. couid be ostablizshod
by sanding these tiisputed cheques to Forensic Scitmce
Laboratory and to handwriting expert to get’; opinion
N)g{;,_p,…..£,,,,
: S :
regantling the signatlires found on the disputed cheqiiee as
also age of the ink used for Writing contents of
Sigxifiitllrfis founé. therein. V
5. The learned Counsel; “i’or«
submit the applications are: yexatieizeietilfii
petitioner is bent upon The
petitioner has failed tev e3i:ab1i,:w._. ii i
gone through zeeoxtls, i find that
I of the geiitioner untier section. 313 Cr. ?. C.
he*-?{1asV__>’bee:%1iica£1ed to enter upon. his defence. At this
ipetiétioner had filed applications tinder sections 91
r243 Cr.P.C. and aim) under section 45 of the Evidence
8. The petitioner has sought for §Iod12.etion of
income tax returns anti books of account maintained by
Within a limited time. There cannot be any
doubt whatsoever that the accused should zgot
be alloweé to unnecessarily protracting A’
or summon Witnesses whose evidence wotiiel not “a
be at all relevant.” _
The accused has right to ‘7.de£§n§~;e
criminal utiai. It is aecusedV5.§1ioV_ k1}o*w3_ host? his ” V
deferme. However, the eourt hasvdiity tot’1fid._Q1;t§whether
application filed by aceixoed tsub-section (2) of
section 243 is boflaiide:-‘£)f”1i(§t.V “‘i’_I}._e_ also duty to
see {hot the ..n’o£ be aliowed to unneeessaxily
to prt1\aet~–§1e ;3ro–ee”erEiis9..<:;?§… 4' V
.._I:o. £1A1.e'e-zzsse on hand, the petitioner has been
tcaltlied _ into defence evidence. The petitioner
has iaised 'x?éi.*ious eonterxtions. Therefore, it is necessary for
the ioefitioner to give evidence to lay factual foundation in
V' eystlfiport of the aforesaid contentions. Thereafter the trial
' court would be in a position to consider the bonaiides of the
u htéaypplioafions flied by the petitioner as also the relevancy of
evidence sought to be adduced by the petitioner. Therefoze, E
Y.
am of the opinion that petitioner can pursue ‘1:/IF aforestated
m;;ee’
appiications after adducing evidence to .’
foundation in suppozrt of applications : hfiI’1;’ b
Therefore, I pass the following:
RDER_*z
Revision petfiions axe ect:–e§ted. Vvoociers
331:: aet aside. The petftiooerl aéid’uoe”evidence.
Thereafter he is at fiberif filed uncier
sections 9: aI;d_:iE4:_i3 o;+;’1£5.[c§§:j:a$:_gd..};:;,o’% Sec.-45 9:” the
Evidence Ao_t.~ §’i.1;;_ shall consider
the ..coi1sideration evidence of both
parties arid oiso relevancy 2″-.iSptZCi.{\! 5
Sd/5
Iuafi