UMESH TIWARI Vs. CHANDRAMOHAN BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C against the order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Court of Ist ASJ, Vidisha (Shri B.K.Dube) in Cr.Revision No.25 of 2010 affirming the order dated 6.1.2010 passed by the Court of JMFC (Shri Jaffar Iqbal) in Cr.Case No.2782 of 2006 rejecting the application filed by the accused for calling Bholaram and Sanjay Tiwari as defence witnesses and hand writing expert Pankaj Agrawal for getting the writing on the cheques examined in his defence.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been filed by the respondent/complainant against the petitioner/accused regarding three cheques given by him to the complainant which were returned by ICICI Bank for payment as there was no sufficient fund in the account of the petitioner/accused. The demand note for the payment of the cheques amount was given by the complainant to the accused but the accused failed to pay the amount as demanded by the complainant. Therefore the said complaint has been filed against the accused.

(3.) Denying the allegation of the complaint, the accused has claimed that the disputed cheques were not given by him to the complainant. The accused further states that no grain was purchased by him from the complainant as alleged in para 3, 4 and 5 of the complaint. The accused has taken a defence that the aforesaid cheques were given by him to Bhola Ram and Sanjay Tiwari in his business transaction. The cheques were misused by the complainant in connivance with Bhola Ram and Sanjay Tiwari. The statement of accused under Section 315 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 6.1.2010. On the same day, an application for calling aforesaid witnesses was filed by the accused. The application was rejected vide order dated 6.1.2010 on the ground that the delay has been caused by the accused in trial. The propriety of the aforesaid order was challenged in Criminal Revision No.25 of 2010 which was rejected by the Court of Ist ASJ, Vidisha vide order dated 15.3.2010 affirming the order of lower Court.