J. Shyam @ Manikandan v. M/S. Madurai City Permanent
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 08.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS Criminal Revision Case (MD)No.299 of 2016 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4010 of 2016 J.Shyam @ Manikandan .. Petitioner/accused Vs.
M/s.Madurai City Permanent Fund Ltd.,Rep by its Chairman cum Managing Director, K.Dharmar, No.71, Northveli Street, Madurai 625 001.
.. Respondent/complainant Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3247 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.614 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Fast Track Court, at Magisterial Level, Madurai dated 04.05.2016 and set aside the same by allowing this criminal revision petition. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Senthilkumar For Respondent : Mr.G.Anbu Saravanan
ORDER
The accused in a cheque bouncing case aggrieved by the allowing of complainant's petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C in Cr.M.P.No.3247 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.614 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Fast Track Court, Madurai, filed this revision. 2.Respondent/complainant prosecutes the revision petitioner/accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Evidence was let in. Accused has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence evidence was also let in. Accused/D.W.1 gave evidence. Arguments is to be heard.
3.At this juncture, the complainant filed Crl.M.P(MD)No.3247 of 2016 under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall himself for marking three documents. The learned Magistrate allowed the said petition. However, directed the complainant to pay a cost of Rs.200/- to the accused. The accused received the cost.
4.Now the accused challenges allowing of the recall petition on the ground that it is intended to fill up lacunae, details of the documents were not given, when he had every opportunity to produce those documents he did not do so and no acceptable reason has been given. 5.Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, in support of his said submissions cited the following rulings:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i)In M/s.Dandy Knit Garments Vs.M/s.Subiksha Spinners (P) Ltd., (2000 Crl.L.J 624);
(ii)In P.R.Chandran Vs.M/s.Rajendra Paper Sores, (Crl.R.C.No.772 of 2005 dated 27.07.2007) (iii)In L.Ilayaraja Vs.S.J.Sakthivadivel (Crl.O.P.No.26808 of 2009 dated 09.03.2015) 6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant contended that the need to produce these documents arose because of the answer given by the accused as D.W.1. In his evidence, he had stated that he did not borrow money from the complainant, he borrowed money only from one Kannan. In such circumstances, it is incumbent upon the complainant to establish by evidence that in fact he did borrow money from the complainant company. 7.According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the savings bank account in the name of the accused, the ledger account having the name of the accused and share ledger account sought to be marked.
Further, having received the cost, he had accepted the impugned order of the Magistrate. Thereafter, he cannot challenge it. 8.I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order and the materials on record. 9.The scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C is wide. It can be resorted at any time but before pronouncing judgment. It is intended to enable parties to produce relevant evidence so as to enable the Court to render a correct finding. Now in this case, the accused took a stand that he has no transaction with the complainant. He did not borrow from the complainant. This contention came for the first time when he entered the witness box as D.W.1. In such circumstances in order to establish that the borrowing was with the respondent it has been a duty of the complainant to produce relevant evidence to establish it.
In such circumstances, leave has been sought for to produce the said three documents. Still the documents have to be produced in evidence, still the accused has opportunity to further cross examine P.W.1, when these documents are marked. In the circumstances, question of filling up the lacunae will not arise. The decisions cited are also not applicable to the facts of this case.
10.In view of the foregoings, this revision petition fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P(MD)No.4010 of 2016 is closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(Cs-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar.
To Judicial Magistrate No.I,Fast Track Court, (Magisterial Level),Madurai. +1CC to M/S. B.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, SR.No. 28784 +1CC to M/S. G.Anbu Saravanan, Advocate, SR.No. 28853 Criminal Revision Case (MD)No.299 of 2016 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4010 of 2016 08.06.2016 sms AM/AAL.MPA/SAR-II/20.06.2016/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/