TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount of interest, which on the face of it, is not reflected in the ITRs for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.10.2016 is liable to be set aside. Further, the observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order dated 21.11.2016, whereby the petitioner was not granted one more opportunity to deposit the cost of ₹ 10,000/- imposed for summoning the Clerk of State Bank of India are also not justified as it is very much believable that the petitioner could not be able to deposit the said cost on account of declaration of demonetization on 08.11.2016 resulting into cash crunch and paucity of cash even in banks. Petition allowed. - CRM-M No. 44016 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant appeared as his own witness as PW-1, in his cross-examination, he placed on record the photocopy of his ITRs for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, which are marked as Mark D3 to D6. 5. Learned counsel referred to cross-examination dated 21.01.2015, wherein the complainant has stated that he has been disclosing his income in the tax returns regarding interest received by him from the petitioner/accused, however, he has not produced the copy of the ITRs in Court and have only attached copy of ITRs with the complaint. 6. Learned counsel further argued that thereafter, the statement of the petitioner/accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he stated that he has taken a loan of ₹ 11 Lakh and has given a blank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for granting permission to lead additional evidence by way of producing the ITRs for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, however, the said application was dismissed by passing the impugned order dated 27.10.2016 only with the observations that ITRs are already on record as Mark D3 to D6 and there is no need to allow the application, whereas this finding of the trial Court is factually incorrect. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that even while allowing the application partly qua summoning a Clerk from State Bank of India, it was ordered that the petitioner will deposit a cost of ₹ 10,000/-, however, the same could not be depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng since 2013. 16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the present petition. 17. The finding recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order dated 27.10.2016 that the ITRs Mark D3 to D6 are pertaining to relevant period is factually incorrect as these are the ITRs for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-14, whereas, as per the case of the complainant, the loan was advanced in the year 2008 and the cheque was presented in 2012 and, therefore, as per the averments made in the complaint and in the statement of the complainant that the petitioner/accused was quarterly paying the amount of interest, which on the face of it, is not reflected in the ITRs for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
