RAHUL JAIN Vs. SHUBHAM OSWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This M.Cr.C. has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of accused petitioner Rahul Jain. It is directed against the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Court of Learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, whereby an application filed by accused/ petitioner under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., was dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this M.Cr.C. may be summarized as hereunder. Respondent complainant Shubham Oswal filed a private complaint against petitioner Rahul Jain, proprietor of Mahavir Agency for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was alleged therein that complainant had given Rs.1 lac to the accused/petitioner by way of loan. In discharge of aforesaid debt, accused issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.1 lac drawn on Narsinghpur Branch of Bank of India, dated 26.10.2015. When the cheque was presented to the bank, it was dishonored for want of funds in the concerned account. The defence of the accused petitioner is that after he had issued the cheque, complainant had sent a message on his mobile phone to the effect that he should transfer the aforesaid amount of Rs.1 lac directly in the account of one Pulkit Popli, who was the friend of the complainant. On the instructions of the complainant, accused/ petitioner had transferred the amount of Rs.1 lac in the account of Pulkit Popli. Thus, he had discharged the debt due by him; however, the complainant misused the cheque earlier issued by the accused and presented it to the bank. After trial, learned Magistrate convicted the accused/petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. The accused petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur by way of appeal.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal, accused moved an application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C.. It was averred in the application by the accused that examination of Pulkit Popli as a defence witness is necessary for just and proper decision of the case; therefore, it was prayed that aforesaid Pulkit Popli be allowed to be examined in defence of the accused.