K RANI Vs. V S FINANCIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, who is an accused in C.C.No.207 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, had preferred these two revision petitions against the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.Nos.3070 and 3000 of 2008, allowing the petitions filed by the complainant for summoning a document under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and to recall the witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., respectively.

(2.) THE complainant/respondent had filed a complaint against the accused/petitioner for AN offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant/respondent to recall the witness P.Devarajan-Advocate, who stood as a witness in an agreement dated 7.4.2004 executed by the husband of the accused. That document was already summoned under Section 91 Cr.P.C., and placed before the Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel also relied on the decisions reported in 1991 Crl.L.W.(Crl.) 42-GOVINDA REDDY VS. STATE 2001(2) MWN(Cr.) 265-A.RADHAKRISHNAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CITY CIRCLE, MADRAS 1991 LW(CRL) 475 - N.LAKSHMANAN VS. THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, TIRUTTANI, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MR.M.KUPPUSWAMY AND 2000 CRI.L.J.624-M/S.DANDY KNIT GARMETS AND ANOTHER VS. M/S.SUBIKSHA SPINNERS(P) LTD. He would further submit that with regard to allowing the petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. the pass book of the complainant/respondent relating to the period from 11.6.1990 to 27.4.2001 is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in this case.