LAWS(BOM)-2008-4-155

AMIT KUMAR JAI PRAKASH Vs. MAHESH MAHADEV DABHOLAKAR

Decided On April 22, 2008
AMIT KUMAR JAIPRAKASH SINGH Appellant
V/S
MAHESH MAHADEV DABHOLKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant-original Complainant has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 12. 9. 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 10th court, Andheri, Mumbai in C. C. No. 3121/ss of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicants. I have perused the evidence which has been annexed by the applicants as well as the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) The amount of cheque in question is rs. 70,000/ -. In the present case, the evidence of the complainant was led. He was cross-examined. Thereafter, the arguments of both sides were heard by the learned Magistrate. During the arguments, the learned Counsel for the accused raised a defence that as the original documents were not on record, the complainant has not proved his case and hence, accused should be acquitted. At that time, application came to be made by the complainant for bringing the original documents on record. The said application came to be rejected. The case of the complainant is that, he had offered the original documents at the time of filing of the affidavit in the court, but the same were returned to him stating that they could not be taken on record. However, it is well known fact that it is not the practice of the Court to return the documents if the complainant wants to file the same on record. In fact, in the Roznama, there is a specific endorsement that "original documents are not filed". Clearly the application preferred by the complainant is an after thought. The complainant wanted to rectify his defect after hearing the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the accused and after the accused had revealed his defence. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that if the application is allowed, it would allow the complainant in rectifying the defect which goes to the root of the matter.