PRAKASH SEVANTILAL VORA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant.

(2.) Applicant has filed this application challenging two orders passed by the learned Magistrate; one dated 21/4/2010 by which application filed by the applicant for sending disputed cheques to the handwriting expert was rejected and the other dated 15/06/2010 by which application made by the applicant for recalling the witness for cross-examination was rejected.

(3.) Brief facts are that a complaint was filed by Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant is a businessman and and a Proprietor of M/s Mannit Jewels which is a Proprietory Firm dealing in business of diamonds. It is alleged that the accused applicant herein is also a Proprietor of Prakash Corporation which is dealing in diamonds. According to the complainant, he sold cut diamonds under Invoice dated 07/06/2007 worth Rs 3,25,220/- to the accused and, according to him, in discharge of the said liability, the accused issued two cheques to the complainant drawn on Bank of Baroda, Altamount Road Branch, Mumbai; one dated 05/07/2007 for an amount of Rs 1,45,000/- and the other dated 10/07/2007 for an amount of Rs 1,75,000/-. According to the complainant, the said cheques were signed by the accused in his capacity as an authorized signatory of M/s Prakash Corporation. The said cheques, when they were deposited, were returned unpaid by the Banker of the accused. The complainant issued legal notice dated 27/09/2007 and called upon the accused to make payment of the aforesaid amount within 15 days from the date of receipt by the accused. This notice was served. However, thereafter, since the amount was not paid, complainant filed this complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Alongwith the complaint, both the cheques were annexed so also the Bank Memo, intimation of dishonour, legal notice, postal receipt and the Invoice. List of witnesses was also given. This complaint was filed in October, 2007. Process was issued. Plea of the accused was recorded. Affidavit in lieu of evidence of the complainant was filed. The complainant was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. Thereafter, application was filed by the applicant herein for sending both the cheques involved in the case to the State Examiner of Handwriting on 21/04/2010. Both, the applicant and complainant were heard. The said application, however, was rejected. Thereafter, another application was filed by the applicant herein dated 31/05/2010 seeking an order of recalling of the complainant for cross-examination. This second application was also rejected by the trial court.