ARIHANT URBAN CO Vs. RAVINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.9.2009 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No. 583 of 2009 whereby the order dated 1.7.2009 passed by JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No. 15003 of 2006, whereby learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by respondent was set aside holding that the affidavit submitted by Shri Vijay Panwar dated 25.4.2009 is inadmissible in evidence, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "the N.I. Act") alleging that the petitioner is a Bank and, Shri Vijay Panwar is authorized by the petitioner bank to file the complaint. It is alleged that a cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- was issued by respondent in favour of the petitioner bank on 15.7.2005. It was alleged that upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured and the cheque amount was not paid inspite of demand. It was also alleged that the respondent has committed an offence punishable under the provision of N.I. Act. It was prayed that after taking cognizance of the offence, respondent be convicted.

(3.) After taking cognizance of the offence charge was framed and the case was fixed for recording the evidence. At that stage, an affidavit was filed by Shri Vijay Panwar in support of complaint. An application was filed by the respondent wherein it was prayed that Shri Vijay Panwar is not authorised by the petitioner bank to give evidence. It is submitted that name of Shri Vijay Panwar is not shown by the petitioner in the list of witnesses. It was alleged that the statement/affidavit submitted by Shri Vijay Panwar in support of complaint is inadmissible in evidence, hence the same be rejected. The application was opposed by the petitioner. After hearing both the parties, learned Trial Court dismissed the application, against which a revision petition was filed by respondent, which was allowed and the order passed by learned Trial Court was set aside holding that the affidavit submitted by Shri Vijay Panwar is inadmissible in evidence, against which present petition has been filed.