STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed a complaint, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against respondent Vijay Kumar. It is alleged that Vijay Kumar issued a cheque of Rs.75,516 in favour of the petitioner towards discharge of liability for the loan raised from it and that when the same was presented to the bankers of the respondent, it was returned with endorsement that funds in the account of the respondent were insufficient to honour the cheque. Thereafter, notice, as per requirement of law, was issued to the respondent and when there was no response, complaint was filed. After the complainant had adduced its evidence and even the statement of the respondent had been recorded, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved for recalling the Manager of the petitioner-bank, to appear as witness for further cross-examination. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application. Revision was filed by the respondent in the Court of Sessions Judge, who allowed that revision petition vide order dated 6.11.2009. PETITIONER has challenged this order of the Sessions Judge.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent.

(3.) NEXT submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that in the application it is not disclosed as to on what point the Bank Manager, sought to be recalled, was to be re-examined. This submission carries a good deal of weight. Application does not disclose as to what is to be asked of the witness, sought to be recalled. Not only this, even this has not been stated that recall of the witness is essential for just decision of the case. Thus the application, which was moved by the respondent, cannot be said to pertain to second part of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate was not revisable.