SOMASUNDARAM Vs. KOTHANDAPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Villupuram in C. C. No. 64/2006.

(2.) DURING the course of trial for the charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the respondent herein marked certain documents classifying them as promissory notes. The trial court chose to mark those documents. An objection was raised before the trial court by the petitioners herein on the ground that the promissory notes which were unstamped cannot be marked during the course of trial. It has also been objected on the ground that those documents also do not appear to be promissory notes as there was no unconditional undertaking to pay the amount as defined under section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981. Therefore, those documents cannot be marked and entertained by the trial court. But the trial court rejected the objection raised by the petitioners who are the accused in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent/complainant would contend that no revision would lie as against the interlocutory order passed by the trial court. Secondly, the subject documents are not at all promissory notes and they are only the receipts evidencing the payment made by the respondent to the petitioners. The receipts can be admitted of course, subject to the payment of stamp duty and penalty imposed by the trial court. On these two grounds, revision petition laid seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Villupuram, is not sustainable.