H. FERNANDO Vs. ALLIED COAL (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is arrayed as an accused in C.C. No. 294 of 2011 filed by the respondent herein, has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case questioning the correctness of the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in MP No.653 of 2012 in C.C. No. 294 of 2011, by which the petition filed by the respondent to substitute the name of the complainant, who originally filed the complaint, as one Srinivasan instead of Sukumar was allowed.

(2.) The respondent has filed the above C.C. No. 294 of 2011 before the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai against the petitioner herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the respondent, the petitioner had received goods worth Rs.2,00,000/- from them on credit basis. However, inspite of receipt of reminders from the respondent, the petitioner has not paid the outstanding balance amount. Ultimately, after repeated demands made by the respondent, the petitioner has issued the cheque dated 14.10.2010 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and on presentation of the cheque, it was dishonoured for the reason 'payment stopped by the drawer on 21.10.2010." After issuing a statutory notice on 12.10.2010, which was also acknowledged by the petitioner on 18.11.2010, the respondent instituted the above calander case before the Court below.

(3.) Pending C.C. No. 294 of 2011, the respondent/complainant filed a petition in M.P. No. 653 of 2012 praying the court below to substitute the name of Sukumar, who instituted the above complaint on behalf of the respondent, with the name of Mr. Srinivasan inasmuch as the said Mr. Sukumar is suffering from illness and due to his deteriorating health, he could not attend to the Court proceedings. The petition was opposed by the petitioner stating that the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the said Sukumar, who originally instituted the complaint, has been taken away and it amounts to depriving the petitioner of his legal right. The court below, after hearing both sides allowed the said petition by holding that by substituting the name of the complainant, the right of the petitioner will not in any be jeoparadised and it is always open to the petitioner to examine and cross-examine the person who is now sought to be substituted as representative to prosecute the complaint on behalf of the respondent.