9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.149 of 2016. The petitioner herein filed C.C. No.149 of 2016 against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section - 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act, 1881'). ii) The petitioner herein filed an application under Section - 311 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.P. No.440 of 2020 to reopen the matter for further chief-examination of PW.2 so as to mark some documents. It has filed an application under Section - 254 (2) of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P. No.442 of 2020 to receive the documents i.e., authorization letter dated 10.04.2020 issued in favour of PW.2 and certified copy of partnership deed. It has also filed another application under Section - 311 of Cr.P.C vide Crl.M.P. No.441 of 2020 to recall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash the said common order. 3. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER: Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner herein is the complainant and it has to file authorization letter given to PW.2 and also copy of deed of partnership. If the said documents are received and marked as exhibits, no prejudice would be caused to the accused and, therefore, the same may be allowed on costs. 4. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.1 & 2: i) Mr. M. Shiva Shekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - accused, would submit that despite giving ample opportunity, the petitioner did not file the said documents. The applications filed earlier vide Crl.M.P. Nos.1664, 1665 and 1666 of 2019 were allowed on 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2 on 25.09.2017 itself, and he was cross-examined on 26.10.2017. ii) The record would further reveal that the petitioner herein has filed three applications vide Crl.M.P. Nos.1664, 1665 and 1666 of 2019, to reopen the complainant's evidence, to examine PW.2 and to mark the documents. The said three applications were allowed on 27.01.2020. The authorization letter which was issued in favour of Mr. S. Maheshwar, was marked as PW.17 through PW.2. He was cross-examined. Then the matter stood posted for arguments. While so, the petitioner herein has again filed the aforesaid three applications on 18.02.2020 vide Crl.M.P. Nos.440, 441 and 442 of 2020 contending that it intended to file authorization letter dated 10.04.2002 as well as copy of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly, Ex.P17 authorization given in favour of PW.1 got marked. However, during cross KL, examination of PW.2, it was elicited that PW.2 deliberately suppressed the fact of death of PW.1 and got marked Ex.P17. In order to overcome the said defects, the petitioners filed the present three applications. iv) A perusal of the authorization dated 10.04.2002 sought to file and mark through PW.2 was given by Indira Devi Garg and Urmila Devi Garg, partners of petitioner's firm. It is relevant to note that PW.2 is husband of one of the partners of the petitioner's firm. By virtue of Authorization, dated 10.04.2002, the petitioner's firm authorized PW.2 to represent the petitioner firm before all statutory authorities, Courts and Quasi Judicial Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed vide common order dated 27.01.2020. On 03.02.2020, PW.2 was examined and cross-examined on the same day. Ex.P17, authorization given in favour of Mr. S. Maheshwar, was marked. But, the petitioner failed to mark the authorization given to Mr. K. Giri, who filed the complaint initially on behalf of the petitioner's firm. Despite giving ample opportunity, the petitioner failed to file the said authorization as well as deed of partnership. vi) As stated above, the offence alleged against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein is under Section - 138 of the Act, 1881. Initial burden lies on the petitioner herein to prove that cheques in dispute were issued to discharge legally enforceable debt. Presumption under Section - 139 of the Act, 1881 is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the said three applications vide Crl.M.P. Nos.440, 441 and 442 of 2020 to fill up the said lacunae which are not permissible in law. The Court below has rightly dismissed the said applications on the ground that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting its case and there was negligence on its part. According to this Court, the impugned order is well-reasoned and well-founded and it does not warrant interference by this Court. Thus, the petitioner failed to make out any ground warranting interference by this Court and, therefore, the present criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the above three Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
