GIRDHARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this criminal revision petition under Secs. 397/40 1 Cr.P.C., the petitioner complainant has challenged the order dated 21/9/2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar (for short the revisional Court hereinafter ) in a criminal revision No. 170/2004 filed by respondent No. 2 Sarwan Kumar against the order dated 9/7/2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sri Ganganagar (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in criminal case No. 106/2004, whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., the revisional Court set aside the order of the trial Court and allowed the revision petition and directed the petitioner-complainant to appear before the trial Court for further cross-examination as also permitted respondent No. 2 to summon the account books of the firm Nanu Ram Girdhari Lal. Aggrieved by the order of revisional Court, the petitioner-complainant has filed the instant criminal revisional petition.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, relevant and necessary for disposal of the instant revisional petition are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner-complainant against respondent No. 2 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short the Act hereinafter), inter alia, alleging therein that respondent No. 2 issued a cheque dated 22/12/2003 for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000.00 in favour of the petitioner-complainant. On the presentation of the cheque of the Bank, it was dishonoured and returned unpaid on the ground of insufficiency of fund. A notice as envisaged under Sec. 138 of the Act was served on respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 despite service of notice, failed to pay the amount within the stipulated period and, therefore, the complaint was filed. The complainant appeared as PW. 1 before the trial Court and made statement. Thereafter, accused-respondent No. 2 was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., made statement and produced DW. I Vijay Tinna as a defence witness.

(3.) An application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No. 2 stating therein that complainant has not disclosed as to when and on what date, the sum of Rs. 6,50,000.00 were loaned to accused-respondent and through what documents. It was further stated that complainant is running a business of commission agency and regularly maintains the books of account. The books of account of the complainant are necessary for the decision of the case and, therefore, if there is any endorsement in the books of account regarding the amount in question, then it has to be ascertained as to whether the accused-respondent has signed or not those books of account, therefore, summoning of the books of account is necessary. It was further alleged that the complainant be recalled for further cross-examination because in the matter no cheque has been used from the cheque book.