JAI PRAKASH JAISWAL Vs. YASHWANT SINGH SACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of accused petitioner Jai Prakash Jaiswal. It is directed against the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur in complaint case no.14805/2013, whereby the application of accused petitioner Jai Prakash Jaiswal under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling the respondent complainant Yashwant Singh for further cross-examination was dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this miscellaneous criminal case in nutshell are that complainant respondent Yashwant Singh filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheque in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- issued by petitioner accused Jai Prakash Jaiswal. During the trial, complainant respondent Yashwant Singh was examined on 21.03.2017. Subsequently, on 19.05.2017, petitioner accused Jai Prakash Jaiswal moved an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling the respondent complainant for further cross- examination on the ground that the defence of the accused in aforesaid complaint is that one Hari Mohan Das Tandon executed an agreement to sell agricultural land to accused Jai Prakash Jaiswal for a sum of Rs.14,46,000/-. Complainant respondent Yashwant Singh Sachan was broker in aforesaid transaction. Pursuant to aforesaid agreement, accused petitioner Jai Prakash Jaiswal had paid Rs.2 lacs in cash to Hari Mohan Das Tandon by way of earnest money on 10.12.2006. In lieu thereof, Hari Mohan Das Tandon had issued a receipt in favour of petitioner accused Jai Prakash Jaiswal. Accused Jai Prakash Jaiswal had agreed to pay Rs.60,000/- to complainant Yashwan by way of brokerage and as a security for aforesaid amount, had given him a blank cheque. However, aforesaid transaction feii through and Hari Mohan Das Tandon sold the agricultural land to someone else. Thus, nothing was due by accused to the complainant by way of brokerage; however, the complainant misused the blank cheque and filled an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- arbitraryly and filed this complaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner accused has invited attention of the Court to paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the cross- examination; wherein, the complainant has admitted the transaction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the accused wants to further cross-examine the complainant on aforesaid transaction in order to bring on record some additional facts which learned counsel engaged by the accused earlier could not do; therefore, it has been prayed that the order dated 24.08.2017 be set-aside and trial Court be directed to recall the complainant for further cross- examination.