SARITA JOSHI Vs. DAVENDRA KUMAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revisional Petition No.12/2014 whereby the revisional court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.3.2014 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner for making correction in her statement recorded during the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act initiated at the instance of the respondent No.1. The statement of the petitioner was recorded by the trial court as DW-1 on 13.9.2012. In her chief examination, the petitioner has stated that the amount of Rs. 50,000.00 was written by her in the disputed cheque, however, the name of payee has not been written by her. Later on during the cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that the name of payee as well as amount were also written by her on the disputed cheque. It is noticed that the said statement recorded on 13.9.2012 and the application for making correction in the statement was moved by the petitioner on 8th Feb., 2013 and in between another application moved by the petitioner under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act was dismissed by the trial court on 2.2.2013.

(3.) The trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner for making correction in her statements while observing that during her cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that whenever she makes payment by cheque, she fills the whole cheque in her own handwriting. The trial court has also observed that the statement was recorded in presence of the petitioner and her Advocate and she has understood the same and thereafter she signed it. The trial court has also observed that if such request of the petitioner for making corrections in her statement is allowed, then the purpose of cross-examination will become irrelevant. After observing this, the trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner for making correction in her statement vide order dated 28.3.2014.