Crl. Rev. No. 799 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 799 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.3.2009 Paramjit Kaur … Petitioner Versus Dilharjit Singh … Respondent Present: Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9.3.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar, whereby all the witnesses which the petitioner, who is the accused in the case, had asked for being summoned, have not been summoned. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“Act” – for short) against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar. It was alleged that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- from the respondent in the month of September 2005. Towards discharge of the said liability of the petitioner she issued a cheque dated 2.9.2005 in favour of the respondent. The said cheque on presentation by the respondent was returned with the endorsement; “insufficient funds”. Accordingly, after sending necessary notice, a complaint was filed on 25.10.2005. The respondent led her evidence in the case. Thereafter, the statement of the Crl. Rev. No. 799 of 2009 2 petitioner in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) was recorded on 19.4.2008. She was asked to produce her defence evidence on 7.5.2008. However, no evidence was produced by her and the case was adjourned to 28.5.2009 on which date the petitioner examined two witnesses in defence. On the next date i.e. 7.7.2008, the petitioner examined three witnesses in defence and the case was adjourned to 16.7.2008. On the said date, MHC Police Station City Ropar appeared on the summons that he had received. However, counsel for the petitioner did not choose to examine him as a defence witness. He moved an application for adjournment of the case stating that the accused-petitioner had filed an application in this Court seeking transfer of the case. The case was adjourned at the behest of the defence counsel and the witness i.e. MHC Police Station City Ropar was discharged. On the next date of hearing on 18.8.2008 the parties were at variance regarding the pendency of the transfer application. According to the complainant-respondent, the transfer application had been withdrawn by the petitioner. In any case, the case was adjourned and the petitioner was asked to produce certified copy of the order passed by this Court in order to show that the transfer application was still pending. On the adjourned date i.e. 3.9.2008, the petitioner produced the copy of the order of this Court dated 26.8.2008 showing that a fresh transfer application had been filed by the petitioner and the same was pending in this Court. The learned trial Magistrate adjourned the case to 5.11.2008 for awaiting orders of this Court on the transfer application. On the same day, the complainant filed an application for taking action against the accused. On 5.11.2008, the petitioner did not appear and submitted an application seeking her exemption from personal appearance. The case was then adjourned to 16.12.2008 and then to 31.1.2009 and 14.2.2009 on the Crl. Rev. No. 799 of 2009 3 request of the petitioner to await orders of this Court. The learned trial Magistrate noticed that the facts show that it is at the instance of the petitioner that the case was being adjourned and the petitioner had not chosen to lead any evidence since 16.7.2008. Although, the petitioner did not examine any witness, however, on 9.3.2009, the petitioner submitted an application for summoning five witnesses in defence. The learned trial Magistrate after considering the application, ordered the summoning of MHC, Police Station City Ropar and MHC Police Station Zirakpur with the records of the case for 30.3.2005. Insofar as the summoning of Raghbir Singh was concerned, it was noticed that the relevance of the said witness to the fact of the present case had not been explained. However, if the petitioner wanted the sale deed to be produced, the same being a public document and certified copy of the same is per se admissible in evidence. The sale deed could be proved by producing a certified copy of the same in evidence. Accordingly, no necessity was felt to summon Raghbir Singh. The petitioner also wanted the Court to summon Patwari Halqa Surtapur Farm along with Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawri of the land owned by the complainant. It was observed that Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawri are public documents which are per se admissible in evidence. Therefore, the petitioner could obtain certified copies of the same and produce them on record. As such, no necessity was felt for summoning the Patwari Halqa. Kulbir Singh from HDFC Bank, Sector-9, Chandigarh was sought to be summoned along with the application of Paramjit Kaur. It was noticed that no date, month or year of the application had been furnished. Therefore, on such vague particulars, summons were not liable to be issued for summoning Kulbir Singh, unless the petitioner gave full particulars of the record. Besides, the petitioner wished to summon the concerned clerk of Crl. Rev. No. 799 of 2009 4 Municipal Committee, Ropar along with record of assessment register of house No.425/B, Mira Bai Chowk, Ropar for the years from 2004 to 2007 and the records of the transfer of the house in the name of Ragbir Singh. It was observed that records that had been maintained by the Municipal Committee are public records and the petitioner can produce certified copy of the assessment register which would be per se admissible in evidence. As such, there was no necessity to summon the concerned Clerk from the Municipal Committee, Ropar. Accordingly, Ahlmad of the Court was directed to issue summons to MHC, Police Station Ropar along with the records and MHC, Police Station Zirakpur along with the records as mentioned in the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Court has summoned only witnesses No.1 and 2 i.e. MHC Police Station City Ropar and MHC Police Station Zirakpur, instead of summoning the other witnesses as well. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the application for summoning the witnesses No.3 to 6 as mentioned in the application dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure P2). It is contended that in case the said witnesses are not summoned, the petitioner will not be able to pursue her defence effectively. Besides, the petitioner has filed an application for transfer of the case from the learned trial Magistrate. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner has considerably delayed the proceedings in the case after her statement was recorded under Section 313 CrPC on 19.4.2008. She has thereafter been taking adjournments on one pretext or the other. Insofar as the summoning of the witnesses as mentioned at serial No.3 to 6 of the application dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure P2) are concerned, it Crl. Rev. No. 799 of 2009 5 may be noticed that the learned trial Court has given sound reasons for not summoning them. The petitioner has not given full particulars for the purposes of summoning Raghbir Singh and Kulbir Singh of the HDFC Bank, Sector 9, Chandigarh. It is only mentioned in the application (Annexure P2) for summoning witnesses that Raghbir Singh is to appear with the sale deed of the house in his favour executed by Dilharjit Singh or any other persons. The learned trial Court observed that in case the sale deed is to be proved, the same is a public document and certified copy of the same is per se admissible in evidence. Insofar as Kulbir Singh of HDFC Bank, Sector-9, Chandigarh is concerned, it is mentioned in the application (Annexure P2) that he should appear along with the application of Paramjit Kaur given to him at the time of his posting in the Bank at Phase-VII, Mohali. However, there is no particular with regard to the application of Paramjit Kaur and nor is any date of the application mentioned. Therefore, the necessary particulars are not there but these as given are quite vague. Insofar as the summoning Patwari Halqa Surta Pur Farm at Bela Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib and concerned Clerk of Municipal Committee, Ropar are concerned, it was observed that the revenue records sought to be produced from the Patwari and the assessment register sought to be produced from the Clerk of Municipal Committee, Ropar are documents which are per se admissible. Therefore, there indeed is no infirmity or illegality in the order that has been passed by the learned trial Magistrate which would warrant interference of this Court. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 26, 2009 amit