JATINDER PAL SINGH Vs. KRISHAN KISHORE BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition challenging order dtd. 2/8/2018 (Annexure P.1) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar vide which the application filed by the petitioner/ accused; for ordering the voice samples of the complainant; for comparison of the same with the recording produced by the accused; has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the complaint was filed by the respondent against the present petitioner alleging that the petitioner/ accused was having friendly relation with the respondent/ complainant and the petitioner requested the respondent to advance him some friendly loan. Accepting this request, the respondent had advanced to petitioner a friendly loan of Rs.49,000.00 and the petitioner had agreed to repay the said amount within a short time. After some time, the petitioner had given a cheque bearing No.649262 dtd. 19/3/2016; for an amount of Rs.49,000.00 drawn upon Punjab and Sind Bank, Jhabwasti Ram, Amritsar, with the assurance that the cheque will be honored on its presentation. This cheque was duly signed by the petitioner and was handed over by the petitioner to the respondent in discharge of his loan liability. The cheque was sent by the respondent to his banker. However, the same was returned by the bank of the petitioner; since there was no funds in the said account of the petitioner to meet the amount of the cheque. Resultantly, the cheque was returned as dishonored; vide memo dtd. 21/3/2016, with remarks as "Account Closed". Thereafter, a notice was served by the respondent upon the petitioner requiring him to make the payment. However, still the payment was not made. Hence, the complaint under Sec. 138 of the NI Act was filed against the present petitioner.

(3.) The complainant led his evidence in support of the complaint. Thereafter, the evidence of the petitioner/ accused was started. The accused tendered his affidavit in defence evidence; and also tendered three articles containing the computer output of an alleged conversation between the petitioner and the respondent, as Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. Out of these, Ex.D1 is the Pen Drive, Ex.D2 is the CD with regard to Ex.D1 and Ex.D3 is the transcription of the documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. However, while the accused was tendering these in evidence, the complainant had raised objections against these electronic items qua their admissibility and mode of proof.