CHANDRAKANTH Vs. SARITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application filed by the petitioner under S.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), to recall PW-1 for the purpose of production and marking of a demand promissory note and receipt having been dismissed by the learned Magistrate, this petition was filed.

(2.) The brief facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to this petition are as under: A private complaint having been filed under S.200 of the Code, against the respondent, alleging commission of an offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'), cognizance was taken and process was issued. Trial having taken place, complainant filed an application under S.311 of the Code, to recall PW- 1 and, to produce and mark a DP note and receipt. The application having been opposed, was dismissed on the ground, (i) that the reason for non-production of the document, which was in the custody of the complainant was not explained and (ii) that the document having not been duly stamped is not admissible in evidence.

(3.) Sri Arun Shyam, learned advocate, contended that the Magistrate has committed error in passing the impugned order. He submitted that by allowing the application, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. Reliance was placed on the decision in GODREJ PACIFIC TECH. LTD. Vs. COMPUTER JOINT INDIA LTD., 2009 2 SCC(Cri) 455.