Crl.Rev. No.2105 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev. No.2105 of 2007 Date of Decision: 19.1.2009 Karamjit Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gazi Mohd. Umair, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the order dated 22.10.2007, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, dismissing an application for summoning an officer from Kotak Mohindra Bank, Mumbai, with the record of encashment of account payee draft No.1978-750023, issued in favour of the complainant by Punjab National Bank branch Shankar. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant alleges that an amount of Rs.6.00 lacs was paid to the petitioners, by the aforementioned demand draft for sending the complainant abroad. It is submitted that as per information available with the petitioners, the draft was encashed by the complainant at Kotak Mohindra Bank, Mumbai. It would, therefore, be necessary to summon the record relating to the encashment of the aforementioned draft. Crl.Rev. No.2105 of 2007 2 Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have taken a large number of opportunities to lead evidence in defence. The petitioners assertion that the demand draft was encashed by the complainant cannot be permitted at this belated stage, as evidence is complete and the matter is awaiting the outcome of the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is an established principle that cogent and reliable evidence, that would enable an accused in furthering his defence, can not be rejected by resort to technicalities. The petitioners assertion that the demand draft, whereby payment was allegedly made to them was actually encashed by Malkiat Singh at Mumbai, is a significant circumstance that would further the petitioners defence that they have not received any amount from the complainant. The trial Court, apparently confused the issue by holding that encashment of the bank draft can be established by producing a certified copy of the petitioners accounts. Its preparation or encashment cannot be proved by the petitioners producing their accounts. In view of what has been stated herein above, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar is set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court to consider the application afresh and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.2.2009. 19.1.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE