JAGDISH VISHNOI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate as well as gone through the order under assail dtd. 4/7/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Barmer in Criminal Revision No.55/2018 and the order dtd. 7/11/2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer Court of Revision in Criminal Case No.69/2015 whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of direction to the complainant for placing on record the list of the agents working in his company got rejected.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, the facts necessary for disposal of the instant misc. petition would be that the petitioner is prosecuted for committing an offence of forgery and making alteration in a negotiable instrument. It is the specific assertion in the FIR and the charge-sheet that the petitioner was an agent of the company owned by the complainant and a cheque was given to him which he had misused by making interpolation on it. The FIR and the charge-sheet speaks about the capacity of the petitioner being an agent and his dominion over the negotiable instrument which alleged to have been altered during his custody.

(3.) In the entire charge-sheet, list of agents or any other paper showing the name of the petitioner as an agent of the company has not been presented along with the charge-sheet. Though, the burden lies upon the prosecutor to prove the case that the accused was an agent of his company as it is envisaged under Ss. 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, still if a legitimate defence has been raised by the accused that he was not an agent of the company and, therefore, he had no occasion to take the custody of the cheque in his possession, then it would become imperative for the complainant party to produce a list of agents may be in which the name of petitioner finds a place.