NANDLAL Vs. ANANT & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) What is challenged by present writ petition is the order dated 31.1.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Erandol rejecting the application Exh.105 preferred by the present petitioner - original complainant asking for permission from the said concerned Court to examine three more witnesses in support of his case in the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) It is an admitted position that complainant lodged complaint for dishonour of cheque for INR 2,80,000.00 against the present respondent - original accused. The matter was heard by the concerned Court and in fact, after closure of the evidence by the complainant, matter was fixed for recording of the statements of the respondent - accused under Sec. 313 of Crimial P.C. In fact, such statements were recorded and prior to arguments the present petitioner - complainant had filed an application vide Exh.78 praying to recall himself to give additional evidence and to prove the acknowledgment as to the service of demand notice on the respondent - accused. Said application Exh.78 was rejected by the trial Court. Said order of rejection was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.760 of 2007. Said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 22.6.2012 subject to payment of costs of INR 5,000.00. In view of said order allowing the writ petition, further evidence was adduced by the present complainant and he was crossexamined. It happened somewhere in June 2012. Thereafter on 11.1.2013, present petitioner - complainant preferred application Exh. 105 praying for giving permission to examine three more witnesses; two witnesses being the Managers of two different Banks concerning deposit of relevant cheque in the account of the complainant and third witness being the Post Master.