GURUCHARAN SINGH Vs. MAHENDRA LALWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge order dated 05.09.2005 whereby the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Pali passed an order suo moto exercising discretion under Section 165 of the Evidence Act. By order impugned dated 05.09.2005, the complainant was directed for the production of documents after hearing final arguments on 31.08.2005. It is further ordered that the case will be finally heard again on 30.09.2005.

(2.) According to facts of the case narrated by the petitioner, complaint was filed by non-petitioner complainant under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 420, IPC alleging inter alia that the complainant financed for old Ambassador Car, 1990 model to the petitioner with a sum of Rs. 1,09,000/-. The said car bears Registration No. RJ-22-T-0131. The repayment of the loan amount was to be made in 25 instalments on agreed terms and conditions and, in default, it was agreed that 36 per cent interest will be charged. It is submitted by the petitioner that complainant alleged that the petitioner did not make payment according to the instalments fixed and, upon reminders given by the complainant, he gave a Cheque bearing No. 1711263 dated 28.08.2001 for the Rs. 57,000/- drawn on Pali Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., City Branch, Pali in favour of the complainant.

(3.) In the complaint, the complainant alleged that the said cheque was presented before the Bank for encashment, however, it was dishonoured; and, consequently, the complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate proceeded in the matter in accordance with the procedure and recorded evidence from the side of the complainant. Two witnesses were examined on 15.07.2003 and 24.07.2004. As per allegation, during the statement of complainant Mahendra Lalwani, PW.1 certain documents were got produced from the side of accused-petitioner and most of them were admitted by the complainant in the cross-examination. It is submitted that other witnesses of prosecution, however, came with altogether different version and gave different explanation for the receipt and the same was admitted by Mahendra, PW. 1.