GEENU RAKESH KHURANA Vs. BADJATE AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. M. Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicants and mr. Bhattad, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. These applications have been preferred by the applicants under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" for short) challenging common order dated 24. 1. 2008 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision nos. 779/07, 780/07 and 781/2007. Respondent No. 1 herein filed Criminal Case Nos. 5874/05, 5873/05 and 5875/05 against the applicants herein alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The matters were adjourned from time to time. After the arguments were concluded two applications purporting to be under sections 91 and 311 of the Code were filed by the applicants-accused in the criminal cases seeking recalling of witnesses and direction to produce certain documents. Learned Magistrate dismissed the applications. Revisions preferred against the said orders were also dismissed. The applicants have approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that both the Courts have committed illegality in disallowing the applications filed by the applicants inasmuch as the applicants have been deprived of an opportunity to put forth their defence. He further submitted that the powers under section 311 of the Code can be exercised by the learned Magistrate at any stage. He further submitted that the documents production of which was sought are essential for proving the defence of the accused in criminal cases filed against them. In support of his submissions, mr. Gandhi, relied upon the following judgments:-

(3.) Per contra Mr. Bhattad, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned orders inasmuch the applicants have been trying to delay the matters by resorting to dilatory tactics. He further submitted that during trial there was settlement between the parties wherein the applicants agreed to pay the amount of the cheques. He further submitted that time for payment of the amount in terms of the settlement deed was extended by an order passed by the Revisional Court. He also invited my attention to the said order passed by the Revisional Court. He, therefore, submitted that the applications have been made with a view to delay the trials and, therefore, both the Courts have rightly dismissed the applications filed by the applicants. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgments relied upon.