A RAJESWARI Vs. N RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned XV Metropolitan magistrate rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner in respect of marking a particular document namely Ex. P1, the rental agreement.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such document is not properly stamped and as such it cannot be used as an evidence in a case before the Court. IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned magistrate without assigning any valid reasons simply rejected the objection raised by the petitioner in respect of marking a particular document namely ex. P1 and the said non speaking order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) IT is seen that the petitioner is facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The only grievance of the petitioner, in respect of this matter, is that the complainant said to have marked the document namely Ex. P1, the rental agreement, to prove the liability on the part of the accused herein in respect of the disputed cheque involved in this matter. A perusal of the materials available on record as well as the impugned order discloses that the petitioner has not filed any objection or any memo raising his objection. This Court is not able to see as to what is the exact objection raised by the petitioner herein. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the following endorsement made on the respective dates : 25. 05. 2007 Complainant present. Accused absent. Section 317 & for PW1 cross call on 13. 06. 2007 13. 06. 2007 Both present. PW1 record and partly cross examined. call on 22. 06. 2007 for PW1 cross and reply from the complainant with respect to the objection raised by the accused counsel. Call on 22. 06. 2007 22. 06. 2007 Both parties present. Both side submissio n heard with respect that the documents objections call on 28. 06. 2007 for orders in the objection. 28. 06. 2007 Objection rejected for cross continuation. Call on 25. 07. 2007 IT is also seen that the endorsement of the impugned order dated 28. 06. 2007 reads that objection rejected for cross continuation call on 25. 07. 2007. The usual procedure is that whenever there is any objection for marking any document if the Court once to allow the document to be marked, the Courts used to mention that particular document was marked with objection. But in this case, it is seen that the objection was rejected and the case is posted for further cross-examination of P. W. 1.