K JAYALALITHA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the complainant and 2nd respondent is the accused in C.C.No.67 of 2016 on the file of XXIII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. It was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the course of trial, after examination of the complainant as PW.1, petitioner-complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.648 of 2017 which is a petition invoking Section 254 Cr.P.C., to summon the Manager of Idea Cellular Services Limited as well as to produce the application form of Cell No.9848657579 and payment of bills for the Months of June 2015 to August, 2015 and also to summon the Manager, HDFC Bank, Nacharam Branch, Hyderabad to produce the account opening application form pertains to A/c.No.50200000216149 and statement of account for the period from 20.06.2015 to 25.06.2015.

(2.) The averments in support of the petition were that the cheque issued was for discharge of legally enforceable debt for the investment made by the complainant in the business of accused and in her evidence, the complainant as Pw.1 changed her counsel and it is during her cross-examination, accused suggested that no acquaintance with her and never requested for any investment in his business and she did not transfer any amounts to his account supra and what the complainant stated is she transferred the amount to the account which belongs to the brother of accused, as per the request of the accused on 20.06.2015 and 27.06.2015 which is an account with HDFC, Nacharam Branch. HDFC Bank, Raj Bhavan Branch issued certificate giving details of transfer of amount into the account of Novel Organics Synthesis and accused also exchanged messages during whatsapp application and there is proof regarding and thereby complainant filed petition to receive documents in Crl.M.P.No.3036 of 2016 that was allowed subject to costs of Rs.500/-. Petitioner was recalled and she was examined and got marked Exs.P.10 and P.11. It was during further crossexamination pursuant to it, on 16.02.2017 it was suggested by the accused of name of accused not reflecting in Ex.P.10 and he was not having joint account in HDFC, Nacharam branch and it is not even his brother's account, but for the cell phone number stands in his name and thereby it is necessary to call the Bank Manager and the Manager of Cellular company to produce the record.

(3.) The same was opposed by the accused and seeking to dismiss the petition that no foundation or ground to recall time and again as Pw.1 to summon the documents or by to examine those documents and it is pursuant to which the impugned order of the learned Special Magistrate from Para 6 onwards read that during course of arguments the counsel for accused admitted that the cell phone belongs to him. However, the submission that there is no necessity to summon the Manager of Cellular company to produce any document in relation to the Cell. There is nothing to interfere so far as that observation is concerned, as the admitted facts need not be proved against the accused. But so far exchange of messages, order can be marked by the learned Special Magistrate containing that observation, as Ex.C.1 pursuant to this order to refer in the final orders being passed by the Court.