N.HENTRY Vs. P.NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.8.2012 in Crl. M.P. No. 1201 of 2008 in C.C. No. 149 of 2005 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kuzhithurai. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kuzhithurai, while passing the impugned order in Crl. M.P. No. 1201 of 2008 in C.C. No. 149 of 2005 on 17.8.2012 has inter alia observed that 'the witnesses mentioned by the petitioner in the Witness Schedule to be examined' are not very much relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case and that it will take long time to examine those witnesses even if they are allowed to be examined and consequently dismissed the petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused urges before this Court that the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to examine the witnesses mentioned in the Schedule by serving summons upon them through Court and those witnesses are very much relevant to be examined to prove the defence of the petitioner in C.C. No. 149 of 2005.

(3.) Yet another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that the ingredients of Section 138(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, specifies that the cheque has to be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. Also, that the respondent/complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint, inasmuch as there is no legally enforceable 'Debt or Liability' Lastly, it is the stand of the petitioner/accused that the impugned order in Crl. M.P. No. 1201 of 2008 dated 17.8.2012 in C.C. No. 149 of 2005 has been passed by the trial Court in an erroneous fashion.