LAKSHMI AGENCIES Vs. R. MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry allowing the petition filed by the complainant to examine the Bank Manager, Corporation Bank, Pondicherry and the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Pondicherry and the Manager, Pondicherry State Co-operative Bank, Pondicherry this revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused. Earlier the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner herein under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.159 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II Pondicherry. After examining herself as PW1, a petition was filed by the respondent/complainant under Sec. 244(2) of Cr.P.C. to examine three more witnesses, namely, the Manager, Corporation Bank, Pondicherry, the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Pondicherry, the Manager, the Pondicherry State Co-operative Bank, Bushy branch, Bushy street, Pondicherry. The learned Judicial Magistrate partly allowed the application permitting the complainant to examine the Bank Managers of Corporation Bank and Bank of Baroda, Pondicherry, however, dismissed the application in respect of the third witness, namely the Bank Manager, Pondicherry State Co-operative Bank. Challenging the said order, the complainant filed a revision in Crl.R.C. No.7 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. The revisional Court allowed the revision, thereby directing the Judicial Magistrate to issue summons to the witness 3 also, namely, Bank Manager, The Pondicherry State Co-operative Bank. Challenging the above order, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even the petition filed by the defacto complainant no specific reason was stated as to why he wants to examine the Manager of the State Co-operative Bank, Pondicherry, as the said witness as he is no way connected with the transaction and the revision Court ought not to have allowed the revision filed by the defacto complainant and permitted the Judicial Magistrate to issue summons to the third witness namely the Bank Manager, State Co-operative Bank, Pondicherry.