SRI RAMAKRISHNA MILLS (COIMBATORE) LTD. Vs. D. RAVICHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 201 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam. He filed a private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., 1973 against the respondent/ accused for an alleged offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) It is admitted by both the parties that the complainant has closed his evidence in C.C. No. 201 of 2003 and the accused was also questioned under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and the matter now stands posted for examination of witnesses on the side of the accused. At this stage, the accused filed a petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to direct the complainant to examine the Managing Director of the complainant company on the ground that he only knew that the accused handed over 30 sovereigns of gold jewels to the company. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam allowed the petition observing that the accused is entitled to summon any witness and that it is just and necessary to examine the Managing Director of the complainant's company. Aggrieved over the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, the present petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has already closed their evidence and the respondent/ accused cannot dictate terms as to how the prosecution should be conducted. Reliance was placed on the decision in 2009 SCC Online Del 3754 (Narender Yadav v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)) wherein it has been held thus: