BALAKRISHNAN Vs. TULASIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order in Crl. M.P. No. 4921/99 in C.C. No. 21 /97 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dindigul on 1-12-1998 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused to discharge him under Section 204, Cr. P.C. is under challenge before this Court in this Revision.

(2.) On going through the petition, the impugned order and other documents field along with the Revision, the following facts have emerged :-(a) The complainant/respondent herein filed a private complaint in C.C. No. 21/97 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dindigul against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the complaint was taken on file, the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court in Crl. M. P. No. 2624/97 requesting for appointment of an expert to verify as to whether the date and the material particulars on the disputed cheque are written by the same person. The said application was heard and the same was dismissed on 4-7-97.(b) Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application in Crl. M. P. No. 3103/97 for discharge. In this application also, the counsel for the parties were heard and the trial Court dismissed the said application on 15-9-97.(c) Thereafter, P.W. 1 was examined-in-chief and cross on 7-11-97. P.W. 2 was also examined- in-chief and cross on 17-12-97. For further examination, the case was posted on several dates. On 14-9-98, though the witnesses were present, the petitioner was absent. Therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued against him. However, on 24-9-98, he filed an application for recalling the warrant by giving undertaking that he would co-operate with the trial in future.(d) After all the witnesses have been examined on the side of prosecution, on 30-10-98 the petitioner filed the application Crl. M. P. No. 4921/98 before the trial Court seeking for discharge under Section 204, Cr. P. C. In this application also, opportunity was given to both the parties by hearing them and ultimately, the said petition was dismissed on 1-12-98. This order is sought to be set aside in this Revision.

(3.) At the outset, I shall mention that this is the third application filed by the petitioner before the trial Court raising some ground or the other probably to gain some more time. Earlier, the first application was filed for appointment of an expert and the same was dismissed on 4-7-97. The second application for discharge was filed and the same was also dismissed on 15-9-97. These two applications were filed prior to the commencement of examination of witnesses. But, the instant petition was filed under Section 204, Cr. P. C. to discharge, after examination of the prosecution witnesses was over. This is most unfortunate.