BHAGWANDAS Vs. DHARAM PRAKASH CHATWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging an interlocutory order-dated 14.3.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge (Atrocity), Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 714/2012, rejecting certain application and revision filed by the petitioner in the matter of examination/reexamination of witnesses in a proceeding pending under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the JMFC, Bhopal in Complaint Case No.10481/2010, this application under section 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed seeking invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) Certain proceedings have been initiated against the applicant by the respondent on the ground that two Cheques given have bounced and, therefore, an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been established.

(3.) The complaint has been put to trial and after recording the statement of witnesses, it seems that the complainant filed an application for his re-examination mainly on the ground that certain dates mentioned in the notice issued under section 138 and the actual date of issuance of cheques are differing and wanted to give correct picture, to point out the mistake in the matter of indicating the dates of the cheque and certain other particulars. The application has been allowed by the learned trial court and the revision petition filed under section 397 Crimial P.C. having been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, this application has been filed under section 482 Crimial P.C. challenging the concurrent orders passed by the courts below. Even though learned counsel for the applicant tried to emphasise that in allowing the application for re-examination of the witness, particularly the complainant, the trial court and the revisional court have committed error, but on a perusal of the orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court, it is seen that to rule out possibility of an error apparent in the recording of the statement of the witness, with regard to mentioning the dates of the cheque in question, and to rule out the possibility of any error having crept in the proceedings, the prayer for re-examination of the complainant is allowed.