VIDHU SETHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is facing trial in a case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. She has filed this Criminal Revision Petition feeling aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2011 passed by learned Addl.Session Judge, Incharge South-West District, Dwarka, Delhi whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant thereby permitting the complainant to confront the petitioner/accused with statement of account, during her cross examination.

(2.) This is the second revision petition filed in respect of the order as to whether petitioner can be confronted with the statement of account in her cross examination. This second revision petition is maintainable in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case Inayatullah Rizwi v. Rahimatuallah & Ors., 1981 CrLJ 1398wherein it was observed that :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision petition filed by the complainant, failed to take note of the fact that learned MM in her order dated 01.07.2011 did not allow the complainant to confront the statement of account to the accused for the reason that what cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly at this stage. It has been further submitted that when material evidence has been withheld despite notice from the accused, in view of provisions of Section 164 of Evidence Act, the complainant cannot be allowed to put the statement of account during cross examination of accused when these documents were already in possession of the complainant but not produced on record at appropriate stage. Further the nature of the documents sought to be put to the accused in her cross examination is not the one as contemplated under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, hence the impugned order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Incharge South-West District, Dwarka, Delhi whereby he allowed the complainant to confront the accused with statement of account, needs to be quashed.