JAGJIT SINGH Vs. SATINDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLOWED as prayed for. Main case: Complainant-Jagjit Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') assailing the order dated 20.02.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha thereby dismissing application Annexure P-3 moved by the petitioner-complainant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for examining two witnesses, namely, Sardara Singh and Navdeep Gupta, Document Expert.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The petitioner has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 IPC against the respondent-accused. According to complaint Annexure P-2, the accused had taken the loan from the complainant in the presence of Sardara Singh and had issued post dated cheque. In application Annexure P-3, the petitioner- complainant alleged that earlier while the complainant was leading his evidence, he could not examine Sardara Singh due to his illness because he had undergone Bypass surgery. It was also alleged in the application that the accused has examined Document Expert Dr. Inderjit Singh in his defence evidence and, therefore, the complainant wants to examine Navdeep Gupta, Document Expert.

(3.) I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions and the same cannot be accepted. The name of Sardara Singh was not even mentioned in the list of the witnesses by the complainant. Moreover, in application Annexure P-3, the complainant-petitioner took a false plea that he could not examine Sardara Singh, who had undergone Bypass surgery while the complainant-petitioner was leading his evidence. Perusal of impugned Annexure P-1 reveals that Sardara Singh had undergone the operation on 27.06.2008 whereas notice of accusation was served on the accused on 02.09.2009 and it was thereafter that the complainant- petitioner led his evidence. Thus, the complainant-petitioner came with patently false plea to secure order for examination of Sardara Singh as witness after the respondent-accused has led his defence evidence. No such indulgence could, therefore, be shown in favour of the petitioner.