AMRUT Vs. BHIKAN DHUDKOO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by the original complainant challenging the judgment and order dtd. 9/7/2019 in Criminal Revision Application No.59 of 2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, thereby setting aside the order dtd. 1/1/2019 passed below Exhibit-93 in Summary Criminal Case No.521 of 2012 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon. The said application Exhibit-93 was filed by the present petitioner to re-open the prosecution evidence.

(2.) The present petitioner-original complainant has filed said complaint i.e. S.C.C. No.521 of 2012 against the present respondent contending that the respondent-accused has committed offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It also appears from the documents on record that after the complainant had adduced evidence, the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has, thereafter, examined two witnesses and then application Exhibit-93 was filed which was titled as "application for re-open the prosecution evidence". It was contended in the said application that the accused has denied his liability and legal debt and therefore, it is necessary to prove those facts which have been falsely denied by the accused in the cross examination. Complainant then expressed desire to examine the witnesses which he had examined in civil suit as additional witnesses. It was also stated that it will not cause any prejudice to the accused if the opportunity is given to the complainant to lead evidence, because the accused will have the opportunity to cross examine those witnesses.

(3.) The application was strongly objected by the accused by submitting that since beginning the accused has denied that there was any legal debt and therefore, the application is not maintainable at this stage.