MAP AUTO LTD Vs. ANIL KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH these five revisions have been filed for impugning five different orders passed in five different cases, yet as agreed to by all the parties in all these five cases, parties are same and the point in dispute is also same, hence, all these revisions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) ON perusal of the record and as not disputed by the parties, it appears that there was a business transaction between the petitioner M/s. Map Auto Ltd. (petitioner in short) and M/s. Deepshikha Auto Pvt. Ltd., Mohini Market, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar) (Company in short). During this business transaction, some goods were purchased by the company from the petitioner and in lieu of the price of the same, five cheques worth rupees five lacs each were issued in favour of the petitioner signed by the respondent No.1. When the five cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured. Hence, five criminal complaints have been filed by the petitioner against the company as respondent No.1 along with nine others in the capacity of directors and other related persons with the company in the year 2000. When the case was fixed for final argument, two applications dated 12th February, 2007; one under section 91 and another under section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code have been filed in the trial Court. In the first application, it is mentioned that as per the averment in complaint since 1994 business transaction is in existence between both the parties and the company has purchased goods from the petitioner, but no such document has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by which it can appear that some goods were purchased by the company. The documents related to the transaction are in possession of the petitioner, hence, the petitioner be directed to file all the documents including M.O.Us., bills, account papers, bilties or other documents related to business transaction etc. In second application, it is mentioned that on behalf of the petitioner witnesses Sanjeev Dubey and Narendra Mohan Thapar have been examined. During cross examination, they have mentioned that as they have not brought the account books along with them, hence, they cannot give information contained in the documents. In view of this, an effective cross examination could not be conducted with these two witnesses, hence, after calling the documents, these two witnesses be recalled for further cross examination.

(3.) SHRI . Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn attention at paras 12 and 15 of the impugned order and submitted that at the time of final arguments, after giving three opportunities for leading defence evidence, the applications have been filed and it is observed by the learned Judge in para 15 that the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the applications. Once this observation is given, then thereafter taking a different view is not justified. While placing reliance on an order of this Court passed by different Bench in Mahesh Joshi Vs. Sanad Kumar Jain, 2007 (1) MPHT 33 , he has submitted that the trial is pending since last seven years and despite opportunities given, no defence evidence was produced by the respondents and filing of these applications is nothing but delaying the trial which ought to be rejected. He has further submitted that in the order of the learned Magistrate there was no impropriety or illegality, hence, lower Revisional Court is not right in setting aside the same.