MURARI MOHAN KEJRIWAL Vs. SHARAWAN KUMAR KEJRIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application has been preferred under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure code challenging the order dated 22. 1. 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, in connection with Case No. C877 of 2002.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that the opposite party/complainant filed a petition against the petitioner and against the added opposite party for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was alleged in the petition of complaint that the accused persons are the Directors of M/s Shree Hanuman Foundry and Engineering Co. Ltd. and carried on business of supply of finished goods and for that purpose they received C. I. Scrap/pig iron from the complainant company. As a result of this an amount of Rs. 1,04,44,783 became outstanding. The complainant sent bill to the accused persons for that amount who being the directors of the company issued three cheques in discharge of their liability. The cheques were presented to the bank on 2. 9. 2002 and those were dishonoured and an intimation given to the complainant on 4. 9. 2002. On 10. 9. 2002 the complainant sent notice to the accused person demanding the payment of the amount covered by the cheques. But the accused persons failed and/or neglected to make the payment towards those dishonoured cheques. As such, the complainant had to file the petition of complaint before the learned Magistrate against the accused persons who was pleased to take cognizance of the offence and subsequently process was issued against the accused persons. Before the learned Magistrate the accused persons entered appearance and were granted bail and their plea was recorded. On 22. 1. 2007 the date was fixed for trial and on that day the complainant was crossexamined as pw1. During crossexamination of PW1 was confronted in respect of the civil suit which was pending in between the parties covering same cheques and it was also pointed out to the said witness that the bills and challans were examined by the handwriting expert who clearly opined that the signatures appearing on those bills and challans were not of the petitioner, It is the case of the petitioner that as there was very good relationship in between him and the complainant, so taking advantage of that relationship, the complainant somehow managed to obtain those cheques fraudulently. Against this act of the complainant, the petitioner already filed a criminal case.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing of the said case before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for issuing summons for production of those bills and challans by the complainant before the learned Magistrate. But by his order dated 22. 1. 2007 the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject such prayer without assigning any reason whatsoever. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned magistrate, this revisional application has been preferred. It has been contended by the petitioner that the learned Magistrate mechanically rejected the petition without applying his mind and without assigning any reason whatsoever. The copy of the bills and the challans are very much relevant for the purpose of the complainant to establish his case, as made out in the defence. The petitioner could obtain the xerox copies of those documents which were filed in the civil suit and there was a report to the effect that those documents did not bear the signature of the petitioner, as opined by the handwriting expert. According to the petitioner there cannot be any doubt that production of those documents are most essential for just decision of the case and as such, the order of the learned Magistrate has certainly caused failure of justice and so it should be immediately set aside.