Criminal Revision Case No. 448 of 2012 · High Court

Challenging the order dated 07.03.2012 Crl.MP.No.780 of 2012 in C.C.No.270 of 2010, on the file of the XV-Addl. Judge-cum-XIX-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C., seeking to summon the bank manager with records, was dismissed, this revision is filed. Heard. On the basis of a private complaint lodged by the complainant before III-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, at Hyderabad, a case was taken on file in C.C.No.270 of 2010 against the petitioner, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’). It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and it is a Certification Body engaged in providing GAP Certificates after inspecting the farms, and that the accused approached inspect issue GAP farms of Certificates and stated that on issuance of the certificates, he would pay the requisite fees. The complainant inspected the farms and issued the GAP certificates, but the accused failed to pay the fees. After a lot of follow up, issued Cheque No.616607 dated the accused 11.09.2008 for a sum of Rs.1,40,855/- to the complainant towards fees for GAP certificates, and when the said cheque was presented in the bank, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. After issuing statutory legal notice, the present complaint was lodged for the offence punishable under Section 138 the Act. the complainant requesting farmers and into with the Agreement that he entered

When the case came up for defence side evidence, the petitioner herein/accused filed Crl.MP.No.780 of 2012, stating that the complainant misutilised the cheque leaf that he kept with the complainant as security in the course complainant company, and hence sought to summon the bank manager of the bank who issued the cheque book, along with the cheque book issue register, to know the date of issuance of cheque book, as the date of issuance of impugned cheque is in dispute. The trial Court dismissed the petition by the impugned order, observing that the petitioner/accused has to establish his contention by adducing oral and documentary evidence, and the bank manager is in no way concerned with the cheque in question and the bank manager is not a witness to the Agreement between the parties, and that if really the point of date of issuance of cheque book is of any help to the petitioner, the petitioner can approach the concerned bank with an application to issue a certificate with regard to the date of issuance of the cheque book.

Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the examination of the bank manager is very much relevant as he is the person who can speak about the date of issuance of cheque book as the cheque leaf was not in existence at the time of entering into Agreement, but the said cheque book was given much later, and hence prays to set aside the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that, PW2 in his evidence during cross examination, denied a suggestion that the complainant company misutilised the signed blank cheques kept by the petitioner with the company at the time of entering into the Agreement, purportedly for security purpose. The petitioner though claimed that the blank cheques were kept with the complainant towards security and the cheques were misutilised by the complainant, failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence, but sought to summon the bank manager of the bank who issued the said cheque book.