HEX NUTS PVT. LTD. Vs. JATINDERA UDYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is to order dtd. 11/10/2022 (Annexure P-34) passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, in COMA No.45263/2013 dtd. 4/9/2012 titled as "M/s Jatindra Udyog v. Hex Nuts Pvt. Ltd. and another" under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby cross-examination of CW1-Jatinder Mittal has been treated as 'Nil'.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that respondentcomplainant filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act') against the petitioners alleging therein that petitioners used to get done job work of heat treatment of nut bout stud and washer from the respondent from time to time on credit basis against different bills. The petitioners in order to discharge their pre-existing legally enforceable liability in part towards the respondent, issued two cheques bearing No.989237 dtd. 24/7/2012 and cheque bearing No.989238 dtd. 24/7/2012 for Rs.2,50,000.00each drawn on State Bank of India, SCB, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, in favour of the respondent. However, on presentment of the said cheques by the respondent through his bankers, "Not Arranged For" vide bank memos dtd. 25/7/2012. Upon this, the respondent got issued the statutory legal notice on 14/8/2012 through his counsel calling upon the petitioners to make good the amount covered under the cheques in question but despite this, the petitioners did not pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Hence, the respondent filed the complaint under Sec. 138 of the NI Act. The trial Court acquitted the petitioners vide judgment dtd. 30/10/2015. Against the said judgment, respondent approached this Court by way of CRM-A-2071-MA of 2015 seeking leave to appeal under Sec. 378(4) Cr.P.C. The appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed vide order dtd. 21/1/2019 and the judgment of the trial Court dtd. 30/10/2015 was set aside by this Court and the trial Court was directed to allow the respondent to lead its complete evidence and decide the matter afresh. After service of notice, petitioners appeared before the trial Court on 4/6/2022 and were admitted to bail. Thereafter, despite availing numerous opportunities petitioners failed to cross-examine CW1 Jatinder Mittal, therefore, cross-examination of this witness has been treated as 'Nil' by the trial Court vide impugned order dtd. 11/10/2022. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are willing to cross-examine complainantCW1 Jatinder Mittal and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is totally wrong and erroneous and petitioners may be granted two more effective opportunities to cross-examine CW1 Jatinder Mittal.