R. AMSAVENI Vs. P. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the order dtd. 16/2/2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.452 of 2024 in S.T.C.No.354 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.

(2.) According to the petitioner-accused, the respondentcomplainant filed a complaint invoking Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. read with 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.354 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District against the petitioner-accused alleging dishonour of cheque No.758450, dtd. 4/4/2022 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000.00. Thereafter, trial proceedings commenced and the respondent-complainant filed her proof affidavit along with documents before the trial Court. During the cross examination of P.W.1, the petitioner-accused had put forth the defence that she does not have any transaction with the respondent-complainant, and instead, the respondent-complainant had transaction with one Manjula, who is the sister of the accused. In order to establish the said defence, the petitioner-accused filed a petition under Sec. 254(2) Cr.P.C., to summon one Manjula and three others as defence side witnesses. The learned Magistrate, who dealt with the said case, dismissed the petition on 16/2/2024 by holding that, only to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner has filed the petition. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the cross examination of P.W.1, the specific defence taken by the petitioneraccused is that the respondent-complainant had transaction with the said Manjula, who is the sister of the petitioner-accused and the petitioneraccused acted as a surety holder and that she executed a promissory note and a cheque in respect of the transaction stated above. Thereafter, the said Manjula repaid the loan amount to the complainant, but the complainant failed to return the promissory note and cheque of the petitioner, and mis-utilised the same for the said liability. In order to substantiate the said defence, the said Manjula has to be examined as a defence witness. He further submitted that similar to the complainant, the accused is also vested with the right under Sec. 254(2) Cr.P.C., to summon and examine any person in order to establish her defence. Merely because the petitioner-accused had examined herself under Sec. 315 Cr.P.C., it does not mean that she is not entitled to examine any other witnesses on her side. However, the learned Magistrate failed to consider the object and scope of examination of defence witness, but simply dismissed the petition. He further submitted that after dismissing the said petition, the learned Magistrate closed the arguments on the side of the petitioner-accused and posted the case for judgment on 23/2/2024. Therefore, it is apparent from the records that the learned Magistrate had proceeded with the case, without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to disprove the case against her and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.