L PERIASAMY Vs. SPARSH COMMUNICATIONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has preferred these Criminal Revisions against the orders, dated 03.02.2004 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.314, 312 and 306 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pondicherry. Crl.M.P.No.306 of 2003 was filed by the petitioner / complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall P.W.1, for the purpose of examining him and Crl.M.P.No.307 of 2003 was filed by the petitioner / complainant under Section 244 (1) (2) Cr.P.C to receive additional documents.

(2.) THE revision petitioner herein is the complainant, who had filed the petitions before the trial court. THE fact of the case is that the petitioner and the respondent had entered into a contract and that was subsequently cancelled by way of a settlement deed, dated 08.09.2000. As per the settlement, the respondent / accused had agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner / complainant, for which three post dated cheques, each for Rs.50,000/- were issued by the respondent herein in favour of the petitioner / complainant, bearing Cheque Nos.561700, 561701 and 561702 drawn on United Western Bank Ltd., Hyderabad Branch. But the aforesaid cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the Bank Account. Hence, the petitioner herein preferred the complaint, under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner / complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and his Banker was examined as P.W.2. According to the petitioner / complainant, on 10.02.2003 during cross-examination, the respondent / accused surprisingly denied his role and knowledge about the issuance of cheque and also his past day to day affairs in the company, hence it was necessitated to file the petitions for recalling P.W.1 and for receiving the documents. THE petitioner / complainant has specifically stated the following documents to be received (1) Reply Notice dated 17.03.2001 (2) Letter by the respondent to the petitioner, dated 23.10.2000 and (3) Letter by the respondent to the petitioner, dated 16.01.2001.

(3.) MR. K.P. Anantha Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below could have allowed the petitions in the interest of justice and in support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions :