MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. AMRITSAR OVERSEAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT herein, M/s. Amritsar Overseas filed a Criminal complaint against the accused petitioner herein under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 I. P. C. The complainant's witness No. 3 was being examined. Through him certain documents were sought to be introduced into evidence on the side of the complainant. This was objected to by the petitioner on the ground that the documents were not specifically mentioned in the complaint, nor copies thereof were filed at the time of the complaint and that these documents were not relied upon even at the time of the pre-summoning evidence. This objection taken by the petitioner-accused was sustained by the learned additional C. J. M. , Amritsar on 2. 12. 1999. Against this order declining to take on record these documents as evidence on the side of the complainant, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2000 before the Sessions Court, amritsar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar held that the order passed by the learned Additional C. J. M. is against the provisions of section 254 (2) Cr. P. C. , which provides that the Magistrate may on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue summons to witness to produce any document or other thing. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the scope of Section 254 (2) Cr. P. C. is very vast enabling the prosecution or the complainant or the accused to summon any document to support his or her case, even after the framing of the charge, but before the complainant's examination is concluded. Ultimately, the learned Additional sessions Judge allowed the Revision Petition setting aside the order of the learned Additional C. J. M. and directing him to permit the complainant to produce all the documents relevant to the case during the course of his evidence. Aggrieved, the petitioner-accused has come forward with this criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) I have heard the Counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in as much as the complainant had not mentioned about these documents in his complaint, nor had produced the copies thereof along with the complaint and had also not relied upon these documents at the presummoning stage, the complainant, if at all, could have filed a petition under Section 311 Cr. P. C. only. He, therefore, contends that the learned Magistrate was right in declining the request of the complainant. He contends that the complainant had not even filed an application for reception of these documents into evidence.