Slngto Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. '2,<S3> /2011 PETITIONER ACCUSED Dharmendra Agrawal, aged about 28 years, S/o Late Brajbhushan Lal Agrawal, R/o Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Sujata Industrial Chemical, Daga Building, Byron Bazar, through Shailesh Golchha S/o Shri Phoolchand Golchha, behind the Mahila Thana, Police Station city Kotwali, Raipur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 _\ \\ ..'"^__— — - RESPONDENT COMPLAINANT "s, """SSSt, a v^<^ -S-irf ;v 311^1 W f<-) WT 311^1 »P:IW ">» 's^ ^i^ld'4, eixTly'Kc, t^iray ,.^..'t^?..;..iAi?..-....a..^^ 311^1 'V^K ( y^'i1!) TOnw^ff sn^i SB LMon'ble.Shri Manindra ivloha 13-07-2011 Shri A.P.Sharma, counsei foi Heard. uy this petitlon, tne pemion valtaity of oraer aatea '^3/5/1 i pas order dated 7/2/2011 of the trial exercise of power unaer Secson ; &een aismissea. Learned counsel for the ): recaliing witness on the ground sts process of iaw. SuDmisslon of comDiainant was aiven an opportuit the Manager of Indusind Bank waq the examination of the accused ui; re-examination of the wltness wouil whicn will cause senous prejuaice accusation of commission of ofl instruments Act. in support of hi? reiied upon the order dated 1/3/90 criminai revision No.99/90 reDortedi 1 ne respondent / compiair] offence under Section 138 of the N| !KC stating tnat me petffloner naa and agncuiturai mecticines purcnas| +l^[?t4l'1 ^W<rff'^ fs^ ^^$R iTaffiiHCT^i n snrivastava. J. C tne petifloner. ter has calied in auestion. the correctness and jsed in crlminal revision No.78/1 1 whereby the Court recalling witnesses for examination in 111 CrPC has been afnrmed and revlsion has (etitioner submitted. that the impugned order Ited in the a.oplication amounts to abuse of the i^arned counsei for the petitioner is that the |ity to iead witnesses in support of his case and examinsd as prosecution witness. Now, after Ider Section 313 CrPC, direction for recali and i|d oniy ailow the prosecutlon to fuifill the iacuna |to the petitioner, who is facing the triai. on the lence under Section 138 of the Negotiabie suDmission, learnea counsei ror me petrtioner bassed bv the High Couit of Madhya Pradesh in |in 1991 (1) M.P. Vveekiy Notes, 227. fant fiied a complaint aiieging commission of ^gotiable instruments Act read with Section 420 lissued two cheques towards payment of Lirea ^d by the accused from the complainant. 'when -FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. ^i Th TST -^ww^, w-^ww, R«ni«^< ^^^\^^^%Sd^ s^l T^T (ylaiyi) sf^ilv Rs-ii* (PIT 311^1 sPIW <1 those cheques were submitted, they wf nas Deen closea.. uunng tne course aefence witness, the peiitioner, at the| CrPC, stated before the Court that co| to an end in December, 2004 and evej compiainant by way of security. Ther^ under Section 311 CrPC on 5/2/2011 Indusind bank, in order to bring on j opened by the petitioner / accused. the ieamed triai Court and nnding rec4 call the Manager ofthe bank in order Vt> opened by the petitioner / accused, th4 preferred against that order has aiso b[ The reasons which have beeli invoking jurisdiction under Section 31] extraneous. it is weli settied that afl recaiiea or re-examined at any stage 4 the case. This power of the Court t4 afready been examined can be invok^d ^x^ closed 1 nerefore, l am of the opinion order passed by the Court beiow in Sectlon 311 CrPC. l do not find accordingiy dismlssed. cbf*l[<'l'41*l 'RTR^ ^f 'feT^ <Pqt$K ^TSlfiPISII^T fere dishonoured with a note that the account W triat, aner examination of prosecution and time of his examination under Section 313 laiai relations between ihe parties had come i Derore inat, wo cneques were given to tne ianer, tne complainant movea an applicatiQn ror recail or one ot nis witness l.e. Manager, lecord, the date on which the account was "he aforesaid application was considered by irded that for just decision, It is necessary to find out the date on which the account was application has been altowed. The revision sen ciismissea. n assigned by the iearned triai Court for 1 CrPC, cannot be said fo be irrelevant or v person can De summonea as wnness or •r examination ror just ana proper aecision of recali any witness or witnesses who have i, even ir tne eviaence or ootn tne siaes is |hat there is no illegaiity or perversity in the ^liowing the respondenfs appiicaiion under ^ny merit in this petition. The petltion is Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge »lldfll^Ad 1i!"ll'!l«,tlal-IWlid-— FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.