CHETAN Vs. ROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard fnally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner prays for quashing and setting-aside the impugned order dtd. 19/8/2019 passed beow Exh.70 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur in STC No. 1043 of 2015 and also prays for permission to lead secondary evidence of document/diary as requested by him in the application in S.T.C No. 1043 of 2015 below Exh.70.

(3.) It is contended that the petitioner was prosecuted for the ofence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the respondent. It is defence of petitioner that he repaid the loan amount taken from the respondent. It is also the defence of the petitioner that whenever he used to repay the amount respondent used to acknowledge it in diary. After recording the plea the respondent fled his afdavit of evidence. At the time of cross-examination, the petitioner fled an application for issuance of notice to the respondent for production of diary. The Trial Court obtained say of the respondent, who objected the application on the ground that it is imaginary, baseless and concocted. It is also contended by the respondent that petitioner did not replied the notice. He ought to have had contended the theory of repayment in his reply notice. It is also contended that the respondent never gave fnancial loan to the petitioner. By considering the facts of the application and the reply, the application came to be dismissed.