BABU KHAN Vs. SURGYAN MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After recording of his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and closing of defence evidence, he moved an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for bringing on record three Xerox copies of the receipts dated 20/6/2000, 20/7/2000 and 20/9/2000 and to examine witness to prove that payment in lieu of cheque No. 606506 had already been made to the complainant. Learned trial Court after hearing both the sides, vide its order dated 9/2/2004 has dismissed the application. Challenging this order of the trial Court, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the revisional Court, which has also been dismissed on 22/9/2004 giving liberty to the petitioner to file written arguments. Challenging both the orders, the petitioner has filed the instant petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Having heard learned Counsel for petitioner I have gone through the order of the trial Court. A perusal of the impugned order of the trial Court would go to show that on the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Court, in the impugned order has observed that inspite of affording several opportunities to produce defence evidence, the petitioner failed to produce his defence, that is why his defence was closed. Taking into consideration the receipts sought to be brought on record, the trial Court has observed that the alleged payment has been shown to be made even prior to the date of issuance of the disputed cheque. Payments have been shown to be made on 20/6/2000, 20/7/2000 and 20/9/2000 while the cheque was issued on 25/11/2000. The trial Court has also observed that there was sufficient time and opportunity with the petitioner to produce his defence on record but the petitioner has failed to avail the opportunity.

(3.) From the orders impugned in the petition it is, thus, clear that both the learned Courts below have properly appreciated the prayer of the petitioner and have correctly decided the matter. In such a situation no interference is required to be called for in the impugned orders.