DEEPAK SINGH GURJAR Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA GURJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 16.11.2013 passed by Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan where by Learned Magistrate rejected application of petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for reopening defense witnesses at the stage of final arguments.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint is pending against the present petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur being Criminal Case No. 821/2009 where in at the stage of final arguments petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning witnesses Kamal, Brijmohan, Madan Singh and Sunil as defense witnesses which was rejected vide impugned order dated 16.11.2013 by the Learned Trial Court. The said order was challenged in Revision Petition by the petitioner and the Revisional Court vide order (Annexure-7) dated 18.01.2014 allowed the Revision Petition and quashed the order of Learned Trial Court dated 16.11.2013 and also allowed application submitted under Section 311 Cr.P.C.. The order of Revisional Court (Annexure-7) dated 18.01.2014 was challenged before this Court by the complainant in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 986/2014, the same was allowed and the order of Revisional Court was quashed and set aside vide order dated 26.04.2016 by this Court. Now petitioner/accused moved this petition against the order of Trial Court dated 16.11.2013.

(3.) Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. Vivek Goyal submits that petitioner/ accused has replied the notice sent by complainant under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act on 27.05.2009 (Annexure-2) where in he clearly stated that Rs. 5,00,000/- were returned on 17.04.2009 and remaining Rs. 3,00,000/- were returned on 26.06.2009 to the complainant and the cheques in question were given for security purpose. The amount was returned before the witnesses, therefore the witnesses before whom the amount was returned were material witnesses for just decision of the case, therefore Learned Trial Court wrongly rejected the application of petitioner, as such impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the application of petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. may be allowed.