SURENDRA SURAJBHAN AGRAWA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present revision application, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 26th June, 2006 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.206 of 2006 whereby the learned Additional City Sessions Judge has allowed the Exhibit 14 application in favour of present respondent No.2-original accused.

(2.) THE short facts of the present case is that the applicant herein happens to be the power of attorney holder of one Rajesh Agrawal, proprietor of Sarita Fabric. He has filed one complaint on 14th May, 1998 against the present respondent No.2 and another under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the said complaint came to be registered vide Criminal Case No.1175 of 1998 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.4, Ahmedabad. In the said criminal case, present applicant has filed affidavit by way of chief examination under the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 23rd March, 2006. It is further the case that the learned advocate for the respondent No.2-original accused started cross-examination and during the cross-examination, the applicant herein has deposed that the transaction between him and respondent No.2-original accused was of money lending transaction.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order, the applicant herein has preferred the present revision application before this Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and Mr.Nikhil Vyas for Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper and need not required any interference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is bad in law. He has also contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered provision of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has contended that the document asked for by the respondent No.2-original accused is not admissible in evidence and therefore, allowing the application of the respondent No.2 is contrary to law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed grave error in allowing the application Exhibit 14 in favour of the respondent No.2-original accused. He has also contended that transaction is relating to money lending and interest thereto of about Rs.07,00,000/- in cash and Rs.03,00,000/- by way of cheque. He, therefore, contended that the respondent No.2, who is dealing in lacs of rupees, must have some documents in his possession and therefore, instead of asking documents from the applicant, he ought to have produced the said documents before the Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered this vital aspect and has allowed the application Exhibit 14. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.